FANDOM


Balance

In response to a theory commenting that the little toe is evolutionarily doomed, Silentounce wrote:"Where is this said? The last toe is crucial for balance." Actually, the largest toe is critical for balance. It bears more weight than the other 4 combined. ([1]) --Bastion 07:45, 3 May 2007 (PDT)

  • Huh. I once knew a guy with no toes at all. (Mountain climbing mishap.) He had no balance issues. Anyway, the "evolution" idea is hogwash. It reflect a common misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't make life forms "better." Evolution only happens when there's some kind of selection pressure. Is somebody going around killing people with five toes? Do four-toed people have a better chance of breeding? No and no. --Zicsoft 16:00, 24 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Exactly. People have been saying four toes is the future of human evolution. Well these people don't know a thing about evolution. There is no reason to believe people will evolve to have just four toes. First, there'd have to be that specific genetic mutation in an individual (which we can't predict), then that mutation would have to not also create other health problems (genes are more complex than just how many toes you have), and finally that individual would have to have a long, fertile line of children. With today's huge population and human behavior, it is almost impossible for more than just a few "genetic freaks" to have four toes in the future. People also claim that Lost will claim we evolved from four toers to have five toes, but we know that five digits goes back very, very far in the evolution trail. So far that all mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have the bone structure for five digits, including bats, dolphins, and whales. This is tremendous because mammals evolved from early reptiles (before the dinosaurs) and birds from the dinosaurs and reptiles from an early amphibian-like family. -- macosx 17:22, 15 December 2007 (PST)
    • Please read this article on evolutionary "leftovers" in human beings [2]. It doesn't go so far to make claims that the pinky toe is doomed, but with some artistic license on a sci-fi show where time travel exists, can you really say this is an impossible theory? Amandakay1 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Um ... no, the little toe does not bear more weight than the other 4 combined. If you actually take the time to read the abstract you linked to you'll find that it's the big toe that bears more weight than the others combined. On a side note, evolution can also bring about changes that are insignificant or even detrimental to a species - often through genetic drift. For example, check the Vadoma (a.k.a. ostrich people) [3] --Doc 12:34, 1 October 2007 (PDT)
    • It's amusing that you would take me to task for not reading what I linked to when what actually happened is that you misread what I wrote. I didn't say the little toe bears more weight than the others; I said "the largest." See? Right up there, unchanged since this page was created. --Bastion 11:21, 18 April 2008 (PDT)
    • So why can't we just delete that comment like I tried to long ago? It's obviously not the case.
  • Just for the record, I don't think this is necessarily the most plausible theory, just that it can't be wholly discounted. LOST likes to take vague scientific, or pseudo-scientific, notions and flesh them out (time travel, communication with the dead, miraculous healing). Speculation, however likely, about human evolution seems to fit right in. Amandakay1 04:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: Will never be explained

Lost will never be able to explain every little weirdness on the island. Running through all the details would be too boring. (That's why I can never read fan fiction, it always dwells too much on details only an obsessive fan would care about.) Presumably we'll get some kind of general explanation as how all these weird things got to the island. (Lots of angry fans if there isn't!) But don't expect detailed explanations of exactly what they are.

My guess is that we'll eventually find out about some mysterious force or entity that can suck a portion of a colossal statue from the present or the past or a parallel universe. But we'll probably never find out why the foot only has four toes. Hey, maybe it's a statue of Homer Simpson! --Zicsoft 15:52, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

The writers made it a point for Sayid to ask why the statue only has four toes. Somehow I think we'll find out.Androo 14:42, 31 July 2007 (PDT)

Plane Crash?

Is it possible a piece of the plane could have fallen and hit the statue? This could have destroyed it, as well as partly account for it still looking somewhat new. (If it was a relatively new statue, the destruction would also have to have happened recently)

    • Unlikely. If it did, we would probably see both debris from the plane and the remainder of the statue around it.
    • Also, Ben said the Statue was never standing in his time, which goes back much further from the time of the plane crash-- Steele  talk  contribs  01:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"The producers said so" statement in the begining of the article

I think it should be removed. the producers have been known to flat-out lie in the past about theories. here are some examples

  • The two contridicting quotes at Nanotechnology (debunked theory)
  • When they said there will be no time travel
  • When they claimed there would be no clones on the show, and then showed the two rabbits in the orchid. --CharlieReborn 02:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seem to believe they have used debunked theories. But that's not the case:

  • When producers said there was no time travel, they were refering to a single theory that believed the plane time-jumped when crashed. As far as we know, that's not the case.
  • They said there were no clones, and up to this point there ARE no clones. Rabbits were the same one, shifted in time in the Orchid Vault.
  • I don't know about Nanotechnology so you may have a point there.

So far, I don't know why the producers "flat-out lie", so the statement in the article should not be removed. --Comfortably.Floyd 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they meant no time travel at all. See here --Blueeagleislander 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the exact quote was "you will never hear the word clones on the show / so there will be no clones on the show? / yes, thats right". its in one of the podcasts... you can agrue that the rabbits are a different type of clone than what they ment when they said that, but the point is their statements are misleading and unclear, most of the time on purpose. leaving that message at the top of the page will give people reason to remove perfectly reasonable theories from the page. --CharlieReborn 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Blue eagle islander's linked quote certainly sounds like they mean all time travel, but I disagree that the rabbits can be construed as clones in some way. From what we've seen, that rabbit isn't a genetic duplicate, it is the same rabbit (or perhaps more appropriately, was the same rabbit, will be the same rabbit? My head hurts). Amandakay1 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, they're not clones, theyre the same one, but from different times in the same place--Rod|talk 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found a matching picture to the front of the statue

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_of_Ramesses_II" shows a statue of the Colossus of Ramssess II which was broken from the knee down. The statue matches the image perfectly right down to the wovan skirt and items held in each hand. I take this as confirmation the Island is leaving relics acorss the rest of the world in a rather "Stargate The Movie" format. This also backs up the Literary evidence in the parent article The statue may be in reference to the poem "On a Stupendous Leg of Granite", by Horace Smith. The poem begins, "In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone, / Stands a gigantic Leg". The poem refers to the fallen Ramesses II colossus near Luxor, Egypt. The poem is about the irony of power--and the end of powerful civilizations.

  • Very interesting! Another angle here. I'm not sure it would be possible the way the island moves, but it would be interesting if the toppled statue somehow fell out of the island, leaving only its foot behind.

In general, the statue itself is not essential, its presence as a connection to ancient Egypt - hence Hurley's paintings, heiroglphics on temples, and a symbol of the extensive history and longecity of the island. It has seen power rise and fall before. --Randmacnally 15:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clues Pointing to Taweret - Egyptian Fertility Goddess

  1. Four Toes
  2. Short Ears
  3. Long Hair Over Neck & Upper Back
  4. Holding Two "SA"s (not Ankhs)
  5. Cylindrical "Sun" Headdress
Here is a link to an image illustrating the five clues described above. Victor-200 07:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems with identification with Tawaret or another goddess

  1. Tawaret is always shown as an upright animal, never as an anthropomorphic animal deity - that is, Tawaret is an animal gestalt with some human features. This is very important to the Tawaret iconography, and can't be easily laid aside. The statue, on the other hand, is a human figure with some strange features (possibly animalian).
    1. Tawaret (and Sakhmet who has also been suggested) has four animal toes. The statue has four human toes.
  2. The statue is wearing a shendyt, an Egyptian kilt. Pharaohs, gods, and men wear shendyts. Goddesses wear gowns or nothing at all. Tawaret does not wear a shendyt, because she is a goddess. The only exception to this rule that I have found is in the case of female pharaohs (such as Hatshepsut), who depicted themselves in the typical pharaonic regalia in order to legitimize their reign.
  3. The "headdress" on Tawaret is actually a wig. The Egyptians shaved their heads as part of their ritual hygiene conventions, so Egyptians are always depicted wearing a wig or headdress. The statue, on the other hand, appears to be wearing a headcloth, rather than a wig. A wig would not be gathered at the base, as this one is, I think. It could be the nemes, the headcloth worn by pharaohs and gods.
  4. There are clearly cross-bars on the figures that the statue is holding, suggesting ankhs.
  5. The "ears" have not been shown in enough detail to determine what animal they resemble or if, indeed, they are animal ears. Regardless, there are multiple gods with animal ears, and the ears of the statue do not look particularly round.
  6. The "sun disk" atop the statue's head could be a number of things, including the base of the Atef crown. This would indicate a pharaoh who has died and become identified with Osiris, or any number of gods associated with death. If it is a sun disk, this does not implicate Tawaret any more than any number of gods who sport the sun disk.
  7. Tawaret ought to have a crocodile tail or at least a crocodile riding her back. No such crocodile is on the statue.

What all this means is that there is no evidence for the statue to be Tawaret that is not either vague, misinterpreted, or evidence which points to a number of other identifications as well. On the other hand, there are insurmountable iconographic problems with the statue being identified with Tawaret. If the creators intended this statue to represent Tawaret, they failed. Aaronimo 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy Reference

I provide the following as an in-progress proposed addition to the main page for Statue, and to present a tidbit which I believe to be heretofore unknown to the Lost Community. I do not argue that Lost is set in the world of Family Guy or any such thing, I just thought that, perhaps, there is some link here, as I found the resemblance uncanny. I still need to capture an image of the foot from the episode, and I also would like to find the exact time at which the foot appears. Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any response and help which the Lost community may give me!--Alakath 13:37, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

In Season 5, Episode 11 of the animated series Family Guy, entitled "I Take Thee, Quagmire" a statue of a four-toed right foot appears at approximately 12:40 into the episode, and again at 14:20. The Family Guy statue looks extremely similar to the Lost statue, leading some to believe, perhaps, that the Statue is an obscure reference to Family Guy. It is not believed that Lost takes place in the Family Guy universe or anything of the sort, but the resemblance is somewhat uncanny, leading some fans to believe that there may be a connection.

The Family Guy foot wears a sandal and is claimed to be the foot of the Statue of Liberty, which Peter has obtained as a gift for Quagmire's marriage at the cost of $437,000. However, in the image below it is apparent that the Family Guy Statue is entirely dissimilar to the actual foot of the Statue of Liberty. The foot should be taken to exist as the Statue of Liberty's foot in the world of Family Guy though, as it drives Adam West's character into performing Charlton Heston's final lines from Planet of the Apes.

"I Take Thee, Quagmire" originally aired on Fox on March 12th, 2006. "Live Together, Die Alone" did not air until May 24th, 2006, leaving the producers of Lost some time to fashion the Lost statue after the Family Guy statue. More information on the eppisode of Family Guy is available at I Take Thee, Quagmire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberty foot

Above is a picture of a life-size replica of the Statue of Liberty's foot from the Statue of Liberty Museum.

1238

Above is an image from Family Guy at 12:38 into the episode.

1421

Above is an image from Family Guy at 14:21 into the episode.

K, Family Guy may have been what sparked your curiosity, but that doesn't mean it should be the Family Guy theory. The Liberty theory is a perfectly valid argument that the statue originates from similar means etc etc, but just because Family Guy used the foot doesn't mean they should be included. Its like there being black smoke on fire service shows, doesn't mean we'd call it the fire-show theory. K bad example, but you see what I'm getting at. If you wanna do a Liberty theory or whatever go right ahead, but I believe someone in the past wrote a Family Guy bit and it got deleted --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:42, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


Thanks for the feedback Nickb123! As soon as I get a screenshot, I think you'll see just how similar the two feet are. This is really not a theory as much as it is a reference. I am not trying to claim that the Lost foot is from Family guy, as I believe that is ridiculous. I am merely stating that its design and whatnot are so similar that it is very possible that the Family Guy foot influenced the design of the Lost foot. I understand your argument that there is black smoke from fire and whatnot, and that's not worth being included, but I think that this is SO similar that it's worth noting. If you wouldn't mind giving me some more feedback once I get the screenshot, I'd be much obliged. Thanks!--Alakath 14:11, 7 August 2006 (PDT)


Dude:

Familyguy

Like I said its been done before. I see the image, but I still think its nothing important. I think the Liberty thing may have influenced LOST and Family Guy equally, and so you're making a correlation from B-C when both originated from A if you get me. --Nickb123 (Talk) 15:04, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

I updated with my own pictures from the show. I don't know how the "Liberty thing" could have influenced either of them, when compared to the actual picture of the Statue of Liberty's foot. Also, for reference, in Planet of the Apes, we also do not see the foot.
Pota
Hence, this is the only reference I have been able to find with a solitary sandaled foot which appears to be broken off from a larger statue of some sort. I think that this is at least moderately important in looking for a potential inspiration for the Lost writers' design, or as a "Shout out" of sorts to the Family Guy team from the Lost team. I'm not making grand overarching claims like the island that Chris became the leader of was actually the Lost island and yadda yadda yadda, I just think that the foot may be a reference to the Family Guy folks. That's it. I personally think that the two look similar enough that it warrants some attention.
Due to the disagreement we have though, I will not move my section to the article unless we hear from some other people as to their beliefs on the section's merit.--Alakath 17:23, 7 August 2006 (PDT)
Yeah fair enough, I'll wait and if there's a voting majority then thats fine. The Statue is a Lostpedia featured article though, and is supposedly a encyclopaedic role model for other pages, so I dunno if putting that theory on will be well-received. We'll just see what peeps say though before making a decision k --Nickb123 (Talk) 02:29, 8 August 2006 (PDT)

OK, do a quick google image search for "family guy" and you will see that all of the characters have 4 fingers (and presumably 4 toes). This is because hands with 5 fingers look awkward in cartoons. If the characters have 4 fingers and toes, it would only make sense for any piece of art, statues included, to be the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Username123 (talkcontribs) 2009-03-08T02:36:28.

TAWERET?

Maybe it's TAWERET, the Egyptian goddess of motherhood and deity of protection in pregnancy and childbirth. Could have a connection with women dying in childbirth. Might also explain the temple and the hieroglyphs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taweret

Looks pretty similar: http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2366/1236237056832.jpg

--Melvidar 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually pretty convincing! The ears and attire do bear a strong resemblance.DetectiveFork 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork
Well, except for the loincloth, and the fact that we haven't seen the face yet. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This statue is much more human looking than TAWERET, in the full HD shot you can see the long legs, feet and base of the statue. --Hugo815 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice find but I think it may be Isis, with a throne on her head and an ankh in her right hand, [4] and [5] show Isis. --Hexhunter -- Deus X Machina 21:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Taweret is a good deduction, despite the more human body, or, possibly, it's one of the gods or goddesses with a lion's or cat's head (Tefnut, Sekhmet, Bast/Bastet, Mafdet, Maahes)?Dingbatty 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Taweret had the legs and arms of a lioness and was meant to show a femenine (and sometimes even pregnant) form. The statue has human arms and a male form. The connection with the ears is good, but it doesn't work in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zholmboe (talkcontribs) 2009-03-06T01:49:05.
  • Several reasons why this cannot be Tawaret:
    • Tawaret is always shown as an upright animal, never as an anthropomorphic animal deity - that is, Tawaret is an animal gestalt with some human features. This is very important to the Tawaret iconography, and can't be easily laid aside. The statue, on the other hand, is a human figure with some strange features (possibly animalian).
    • Tawaret (and Sakhmet who has also been suggested) has four animal toes. The statue has four human toes.
    • The statue is wearing a shendyt, an Egyptian kilt. Pharaohs, gods, and men wear shendyts. Goddesses wear gowns or nothing at all. Tawaret does not wear a shendyt, because she is a goddess. The only exception to this rule that I have found is in the case of female pharaohs (such as Hatshepsut), who depicted themselves in the typical pharaonic regalia in order to legitimize their reign.
    • The "headdress" on Tawaret is actually a wig. The Egyptians shaved their heads as part of their ritual hygiene conventions, so Egyptians are always depicted wearing a wig or headdress. The statue, on the other hand, appears to be wearing a headcloth, rather than a wig. A wig would not be gathered at the base, as this one is, I think. It could be the nemes, the headcloth worn by pharaohs and gods.
    • There are clearly cross-bars on the figures that the statue is holding, suggesting the ankh rather than the sa.
    • The "ears" have not been shown in enough detail to determine what animal they resemble or if, indeed, they are animal ears. Regardless, there are multiple gods with animal ears, and the ears of the statue do not look particularly round.
    • The "sun disk" atop the statue's head could be a number of things, including the base of the Atef crown. This would indicate a pharaoh who has died and become identified with Osiris, or any number of gods associated with death. If it is a sun disk, this does not implicate Tawaret any more than any number of gods who sport the sun disk.
    • Tawaret ought to have a crocodile tail or at least a crocodile riding her back. No such crocodile is on the statue.
    • What all this means is that there is no evidence for the statue to be Tawaret that is not either vague, misinterpreted, or evidence which points to a number of other identifications as well. On the other hand, there are insurmountable iconographic problems with the statue being identified with Tawaret. If the creators intended this statue to represent Tawaret, they failed.Aaronimo 19:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anubis

Anubis
While I don't think anyone yet feels confident enough to post which possible deity the statue could represent. I think that we should start discussing the fact that it seems to line up with the God Anubis [6]. This is the only male God that I could find that has a head with pointed ears, and a human body. Anubis also held an ankh, and, to quote the wikipedia article "Anubis was the god to protect the dead and bring them to the afterlife." It seems to me that we could decide on Anubis via the process of elimination, given that no other God meets the criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zholmboe (talkcontribs) 2009-03-06T01:58:07. I still suspect that it is Anubis (because of his connection to the underworld), but I think there are others that are at least worth considering. I will be doing so in the other section Talk:LaFleur#Possible Deities

<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Anubis, rather than Twaret, because of the human form and what it represents. At the first sight I thought of Goddess Bastet [7] for the reason the wikipedia quote, "As divine mother, and more especially as protector...". Also having more than one statue looks most likely, that they won't stop at just one. —Jack in the box 09:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point: Jackals, as part of the family of canids, only have 4 toes on their back legs. [8] Zholmboe 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anubis has human feet, not canine feet. Taweret has lioness feet, with four toes. The LOST island statue shows a human-like foot, though with four toes. I feel there are five matches with Taweret, and perhaps two anomalies (leg length, and presence of a kilt). With Anubis, I feel there are only three matches (kilt, the two ankhs, and hair), and perhaps two anomalies (five toes, the rabbit like protruding ears). Since Taweret has five matches, it's easier to post a link to an illustration. The items that Taweret holds aren't often "ankhs," they're "sa"s. As you'll see in the link, the SA does closely resemble an ANKH and from the rear, could be mistaken for an ankh. The statue seems to be holding them as seen in the linked illustration. I can't take credit for the illustrations, I got this from another enthusiast. Another interesting point; Taweret is a goddess of pregnancy, protector of children and childbirth, and fertility among other things. There are obvious connections to the LOST saga there which don't need to be laid out. Victor-200 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
370px-Taweret svg
The four-toed statue appears to be a human foot. I will concede, however, that it is just as likely to be a Taweret (lion) foot that has been anthropomorphized, as it is to be a human foot modified to have the same number of toes as canids. I will also concede that the ears of the statue better match Taweret's. However, Taweret was a pregnancy Goddess, presented either with a highly feminine form or a pregnant form. The statue has scientifically male proportions. Taweret was represented nude. Taweret had the arms of a lioness, and the back of a crocodile. And, as pointed out in the next thread, Taweret carried Sas, not ankhs. So:
Points against Taweret -
  • The statue isn't strikingly female.
  • The statue doesn't have Sas.
  • The statue is wearing a loin cloth.
  • The statue clearly does not have the back of a crocodile.
Points against Anubis -
    • The ears don't protrude particularly high.

Zholmboe 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • You can't just count "matches" and "mismatches" to decide something like this. That's like seeing a picture of a person with long hair, a flowing robe, eyeliner, and a beard, and saying "Three points for woman (hair, robe, makeup) and one for man (beard) - must be a woman!" The shendyt kilt disqualifies the statue from being a goddess in terms of Egyptian artistic conventions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaronimo (talkcontribs) 2009-03-09T14:48:36.
You are absolutely correct in that you cannot base your final decision on those lists. However, they are a concise and organized way to articulate points during the discussion. It is not particularly different from including a fact about shendyts at the end of your post. That fact is, by the way, excellent. I wish I could have included it in my list. :)
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 20:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Good point. By the way, the tail on Anubis that some have pointed out (present on Anubis, not present on the statue) is a lion tail, signifying kingship. It goes all the way back to the earliest depictions of the pharaohs (the Narmer Palette and the King Scorpion macehead). When Egypt was first unified under a pharaoh, the symbols of the kingship were already present, and one of those symbols was a lion's tail. So it's not that Anubis is missing a tail - the statue is just missing one of the signs of kingship. But I'm not sure whether the statues of pharaohs consistently had the tail or not - my inkling (and that's all it is) is that the tail is less important than the kilt and the headdress/headcloth. If I'm wrong, though, and the tail is always present on Anubis, even in statuary, then this might be a problem for the Anubis identification. Aaronimo

Ankh Theory

The main article explicitly states that the statue is holding two ankhs. I think we can all agree that this is likely, but it has not been revealed yet and the picture in the episode is not conclusive. I think this text should be moved to the theory part of the article. Does anybody else agree?--MattC867 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There's doubt, and then there's reasonable doubt. A close inspection of the items in the statue's hands leaves no reason to reasonably doubt that they are ankhs. I think we should leave it in. Zholmboe 15:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is more than doubt. See the post above about Taweret, and this link. An Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol called a SA resembles an ankh from a below & rear vantage point, the same vantage point as was in the episode. Perhaps more caution is warranted. Victor-200 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
AnkhLeftHighlight
AnkhRightHighlight

I won't discuss Anubis vs Taweret in this thread, but as for the ankhs. It's pretty clear. Take a look at these images that have been enhanced to show the visible edges of the hieroglyphs. I think the right is unquestionably an ankh, and the left is an ankh outside the realm of reasonable doubt. Zholmboe 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Possible Deities

I had been of the mind that the statue had to be Anubis, and while I still think it is Anubis because he, thematically, matches with the show so well, all of the following 4 Gods seems to match the definitive info we can get from the back of the statue. Can anyone figure out how to eliminate any 3 of the 4? Zholmboe 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Would you mind adding Nefertem? I wrote a little on the theory page about why he might work. Rednukleus 03:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Done Zholmboe 04:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect we're seeing a fictitious, syncretic Khmer-Egyptian deity. 1., we've already encountered Egyptian hieroglyphs on Khmer-like ruins, a glaring archaeological incongruity. 2., we know Hatshepsut's Punt expedition never settled any islands. 3., the Eyeland's antipodes appear to be the South Pacific/Tunisia -- not far from South Asia/Lower Egypt. So, until we're given more, I suspect TPTB are insinuating either a) the antediluvian civilization (setting artistic precedents, a global "mother culture") or b) a fictional "lost colony" theory of alternative diffusion bringing together civilizations which, in reality, never met. Aerogami 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The god Set (also spelled Seth) is a strong possibility. He is the god of chaos and infertility, and is perhaps best known as the enemy of Horus, his nephew by way of the reanimated corpse of Osiris, Set's younger brother. Set and Horus have a black/white duality, with Set representing darkness and evil. Horus eventually prevailed, uniting Upper and Lower Egypt by cheating in a boat race, but the true end to their long conflict is shrouded in ambiguity. Variously, Set was possibly killed and dismembered by either Horus or his mother Isis, or Horus only killed one of Set's deputies, meaning Set was never killed. In that version, the conflict between Horus and Set has no definite end and could possibly persist to this day. Additionally, very little rules him out physically: he is depicted as having the head of an unidentified animal, possibly an aardvark but typically referred to simply as the Set animal. While he only carries one ankh and a was, rather than two ankhs, that is the only real physical evidence against Set as the statue. Espedor 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Anubis Maahes Wepwawet Sobek Nefertem
God of Afterlife God of War God of War God of Crocodiles God of Sunrise
Anubis Maahes Wepwawet Sobek Nefertem

The Merge...

is done. I did it at someone's request, though I have to admit I am not particularly familiar with "Theories" pages, so someone may need to go through the content (there really isn't much), and make it fit the conventions for this page. <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 13:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why The Statue Fell Down

On the theories page someone thinks the statue collapsed when Locke fixed the Wheel. I think this is brilliant! In La Fleur there is the flash to the veiw of the statue and then the flash to 1974. After the flash to '74, Miles, I believe, comments on that one being like an earthquake. And that is the statue falling down. It must have collapsed in ancient times or there would still be debris, or body parts on the ground or in the waves. Those survivors do wreak havoc on this place.Annarboral 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite and reorganize whole article

I just rewrote and reorganized the whole article. My process was as follows:

1) Remove theories involving a female statue (based on canon evidence that the statue is male, see main page)
2) Remove theories about the statue being from the future (based on canon evidence that the statue is ancient)
3) Remove material that should have been on the discussion page.
4) Remove redundant material.
5) Re-organize material into distinct subsets.

In completing this process I realized there was simply too much content for one page, and so created sub-pages for each of the major topics. After consulting an admin, I then changed the main page into a page that links to each of the sub-pages. £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove section on possible identities

Unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to just delete the entire section on theories of possible identities of the statue, now that the identity of the statue has been confirmed. --Managerpants 14:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I object. I just got back from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC and spent a lot of time in the Egyptian art section. They had multiple sculptures of Tarawet there, and if the statue is supposed to be Tarawet, they messed up big time. The mouth is way off, the ears don't fit, and all the sculptures of Tarawet were naked. I sent pictures to the Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack, if they post them, I'll put a link up. --Drevil877 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, here are the pictures I talked about.

Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 Picture 5 Picture 6 Picture 7 --Drevil877 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have seen multiple statues of Taweret, and they are different every time, just like most Egyptian art. So obviously there is not one specific way for her to be depicted. That said, did the producers take some liberties? Sure. It's called artistic license. The statue was a VERY slow reveal... first just a foot, then the back, and then the big reveal of Taweret, instead of a human. If the statue had a crocodile back, there would have been no mystery to the reveal. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  03:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.