The article says "The statue was built and standing intact at some point prior to the building of the well with the Frozen wheel, which places it construction at least about 2000 years ago. "
"Across the Sea" takes place about 2000 years ago (AD 43 supposedly). But it seems to me that the Egyptian civilisation must have come AFTER the events of Across the Sea. Because in the underground temple there are hieroglyphs showing Smokey. So Smokey was already there with the Egyptians right?
But the general consensus of Lostpedia is that the MIB was turned into Smokey as implied by Across the Sea. So was there already a Smokey or what?
Now the Egyptians didn't build all their shit in the space of a few weeks. It represents a civilisation. Generations. Therefore the statue has been there LESS than 2000 years.
That is all interesting discussion about Smokey and the Temple, but it is really a separate discussion. We know for a FACT that the statue pre-dated the well and frozen wheel, since we saw Sawyer and the left-behinds at the site of the well (during the time flashes) before the well was built, and they saw the statue there at that same time.
As for the Smokey images on the temple wall, that's a whole other interesting discussion, and I've heard a couple plausible scenarios. One is that one of the Egyptians had visions of the future, hence the image of Smokey on the wall (plausible since we have seen characters on the show and on the island have visions of the future). Two, many people believe that Mother was also a smoke monster - which is how she was able to kill the villagers in a manner similar to Smokey, and why she knew the fate of anyone who went into the Source light, because perhaps she had done so. She could have been a different Smoke Monster as far back as the Egyptian time. Logic would have suggested the temple and other ruins predated Jacob and MiB anyhow, since hieroglyphs were no longer widely used by the height of the Roman Empire.
Either way, the temple and Smokey images are all up for debate. What's not up for debate, is that the statue predates the well, as that has been shown explicitly on the show.
Sayid comments: "I don't know what is more disquieting; the fact that the rest of the statue is missing or that it has four toes."
I find it interesting that he emphasized these two points. That the rest of the statue is missing has some interesting implications.
Normally when there are incomplete stone ruins, the pieces were scavenged to build other structures. This seems unlikely as there seem to be very few stone structures on the island. There also doesn't seem to be anyplace for the other foot to stand.
It's the left foot (note the big toe) - there is sufficient room on the platform for the missing right foot. --The CyberSlug 08:56, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
It looks to me that there was more of a base that was broken off. The space next to the foot looks smooth enough as to be unlikely that there was anything there before. If there was another foot and/or more of a base, the missing debris is still ... well, missing. --Doc 12:38, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
I think it is implied to be old, like ruins, or at least made to look old. If it was ruins, then errosion or many other factors (war?) could account for why we dont see the rest of it or the place where the other foot was.
The statue could have been brought in from another site as it currently is, but That's a lot of weight to bring across the ocean.
This leaves the option that it was constructed in place to be an incomplete statue. Strange, but plausible.
The fact that it has four toes in connection with the above says that the builders made an incomplete statue, sort of mock-ruins, imitating a classical style, but with an aspect that is odd or even comical. This says that the statue was made either as an act of whimsey by a great power, or as some sort of blatant and durable clue.
If it's a clue then I have no idea what it means. --Doc 08:24, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
I wonder why Sayid was 'disquieted'. If I saw one, I'd say, "Huh. Foot." And then if I even noticed the toes, I'd say, "Huh. Must be a construction issue." --Carl
He's not a native speaker; does 'disquieted' have another synonym in Iraqui? (something along the lines of "I've got a bad feeling about this") —Dmuk § 12:01, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
If you look closely at the statue, you can notice that the "pinky" toe is not the same as the others. The edge of the toe has a huge gash in it that goes into the sandle, and the shape is different as well (no toenail area is visible). It almost looks as if there was another part of the statue (another toe?) between the two which was removed and then the rest of the statue smashed together. --Pilotbread
I just noticed something else. The statue appears to be made of a light colored rock or concrete. Neither one matches a scenario of it being the ruins of an ancient statue made on the island. Being volcanic, the island's rock is black. --Doc 08:50, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
Concrete is a very real construction possiblity. The Romans made concrete from volcanic ash, pumice and limestone, none of which are terribly hard to find on a volcanic island. --Absalom 11:49, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
Yes, but I somehow doubt the Romans ever made it to Polynesia, or that ancient islanders developed concrete independantly (the formula for concrete was lost before the middle ages, and was only rediscovered in modern times). --Doc 12:35, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
Not only that, but pumice is light and porous, easy to break off and/or carry around. --Amberjet11 11:44, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
Pumice is light in weight, but not light enough in color. The statue looks like it's made of limestone or a light-colored granite (or the aformentioned concrete). --Doc 12:35, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
If we are to assume that the foot is truly ancient (on the order of 1000-2000 years old) then concrete doesn't seem to be a likely material. The fragment we see shows very little weathering. If we assume that the statue is made of naturally occurring materials and that it is that old I think we have to assume it is carved from granite. --Frieze 09:33, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
First Impressions[]
My first thought was.. 'wow.. ok.. that was unexpected.'
My second thought was.. 'is that here just to mess with us.. and give us something to wildly specualte about so we can create some wild theory.'
To me theres not a massive amount you can say about the thing.. i just hope it has a proper explanation.. and not just a device to keep us going nuts till season 3 starts. :P
The sight of this thing floored me. In fact, it was probably the single most intense "Holy shit!" moment of the season finale for me. I think the show has been focused on all things Dharma and The Others for so long, that we've overlooked that there are much more mysterious things on the island - and if the Statue is any indication, much older things too.
I thought I was ready for a break from the show. I was wrong!
--Y2mckay 08:13, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
My first impression was that Walt created the foot (and who knows what else) because he has the ability to conjure up polar bears and rare birds from whatever he's been reading. Maybe Ms. Klugh had given Walt some drawing materials to occupy him, and Walt, being a kid, just left out the fifth toe. I also find it curious that Sayid has to point out the four toes to us, as if we wouldn't have spotted it and speculated endlessly about it without his help. --afs123 19:43, 11 September 2006 (CST)
similar description from book and definitely not statue of liberty[]
In Headlong Hall by Thomas Love Peacock: "Here you see is the pedestal of a statue, with only half a leg and four toes remaining: there were many here once."
Maybe Walt read the book and "realized" the statue while with The Others?
Someone mentioned that it might be the statue of liberty (harking to Planet of the Apes)
but it is too disimilar with rounder toes, no drape and sandals.
I'll have to read that. Also regarding the statue of liberty, the lost statue is made of stone and the statue of liberty is made of copper, so there's probably no reason to connect them. But I wouldn't hold it past the lost writers.DrodJenkins 12:50, 30 June 2007 (PDT)
Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias"[]
This is exactly what I thought of as soon as I saw the stone foot! Would it be worth noting that Shelley didn't know how to swim, and drowned to death while boating with his wife and friends?
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" --Amberjet11 13:55, 25 May 2006 (PDT)
My thoughts also. Poor Ozymandias thought he was better than God but his great work was destroyed by time. However, the poem does say "two vast and trunkless legs". Not "one big ass foot with four toes". --Rayne 16:29, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Simpsons Theory[]
I don't think the statue is at all related to The Simpsons, but to say that it's ridiculous because of the different networks is ridiculous. LOST has referenced the English version of The Office, been referenced by the American version, South Park references The Simpsons (as do other shows), Family Guy and other shows. Writers do these kinds of things all the time regardless of what network a show may be on.
Yeah but on those shows they've mentioned Lost in passing, and as parody. Plus the shows you mentioned all deal with current pop culture as well, which Lost is a big part of these days. I just doubt that we'll have some big reveal related to the simpsons. For that matter I also doubt that we'll have a character go "Hey that looks just like Homer's foot!" Levid37 02:20, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
I think you're exactly right, and I said I don't think it's at all related to The Simpsons, but my point is to whoever said that it is ridiculous simply because of the networks involved. That just doesn't make any sense. Your reasons, however do make sense.--Jrh1972 07:16, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Actually, the Simpsons, the Office and Lost are all broadcast by the BBC.--Bernini 09:15, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Well, BBC used to broadcast the Simpsons, Channel 4 have had it for the past couple of years though. Channel 4 also broadcast Lost. So, umm, it's only the Office that is broadcast by the BBC. I also doubt that the statue is any sort of reference to the Simpsons, or anything like that - most of the references in Lost are slightly more historical. And if it was, they would probably introduce it with a funny moment, I imagine Hurley saying "Dude.. is that Homer's foot?!" (quote Levid37). I think most people are agreed that it isn't related to the Simpsons? Personally I don't think the foot is that significant.
I actually do agree that it is highly unkely a ABC show would reference a FOX show. Perhaps they would mention it in passing, but not in a significant way like this. Seriously, come on the Simpsons. I know its fun to theorize, but if it ever comes out that The Statue is related to the Simpsons it would ruin the whole credibility of the show. --Bigtimehotshot
There is also a small reference to the Simpsons in the Episode 'Dave' on Season 2. Hurley asks for medicine for his hallucinations, and Sawyer tells how much food he got and that he could open up a mini mart. With the remark: "hey do you think Sayid needs a job?" A reference to Apu? Who knows. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LOST-TomB (talk • contribs) 2006-12-17T16:16:05.
Does anyone seriously put any stock into the "reference to the Simpsons" theory? I seriously doubt we'll get a flashback where the statue was a big Homer Simpson. I mean come on, that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
No, that is ridiculous. Lost is an ABC show, the Simpsons is FOX. Networks don't do that kind of free advertising for each other.
This might sound silly, but does anyone remember the episode of simpsons when homer goes behind a bookshelf and gets lost in this alternate time bendy universy place? And then FALLS through a BLACK HOLE things and ends up in the real world as we know today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nihongasukidesu (talk • contribs) 2009-02-28T09:38:32.
Cerberus Theory[]
That it is one of the front feet of Cerberus Ref. the post finale podcast that we have seen the monster but not known what we were looking at Joesoap
Possibly not an animal foot as it seems to be wearing a sandle from the ankle bindings Joesoap
Disney, the parent company of ABC, often uses four-toed characters in their animated movies. Could the four-toes just be a nod to Disney and the fact that the Others seem to have an interest in children?
Also, this: "Jin, Richard, Jacob and The Man in Black are the only people known to have seen both the ruin and the fully-intact statue."
But Richard didn't see the intact statue. His 'cellmate' saw it, and claimed he saw the Devil. When Richard woke after the wreck, the statue had already bene destroyed.--Pictish 18:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Height[]
In Podcast#19, Carlton places the height of the foot at 35-40 feet. Damon responds that it's at least 60 feet tall, but I think he's just being facetious.
Not really important information, but the actual model from which the foot was shot (it's not CG, although it was bluescreened into the island) was about 4 or 5 feet tall.
Just a thought, if the foot is indeed 35-40ft tall, there's no way it could be from the Colossus of Rhodes, as that entire statue was approximately 110ft tall according to wikipedia. If the foot were 35-40ft tall, it would be almost half the height of the entire statue.ChenGOD
Yes, this thing would be way bigger than the Colossus, and it also appears to be made out of Granite (the Colossus was made of bronze plating over a framework of some kind). The foot is not supposed to be from the Colossus, but may have been inspired by it. --Y2mckay 08:09, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
cleanup[]
i have cleaned up the theories a little bit, but i'm still not happy (a lot of these theories intersect with each other in places). would a fresh mind like to try and clarify further? --kaini. 18:20, 28 May 2006 (PDT)
I'll give it a little go, though I think its so complicated at the mo it'll just confuse me! --Nickb123 15:16, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
Done a little bit of condensing, I merged a few similar theories and cut some repetition about how the 'incident broke the statue' (bit rubbish if you ask me but you know). I haven't done enough though really and the theories stuff could still be summarised more --Nickb123 15:27, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
I condensed the theories and organized them into subcategories, and Santa tidied them up a bit more (props for that). Should be a lot more digestible and organized now Y2mckay
Looks much better indeed from what it was, kudos! --Nickb123 12:21, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
The evolutionary theory that a 4-toed human would be more advanced than a 5-toed one either needs to be cleaned up or deleted, as it is factually incorrect. Evolutionary changes only occur when a feature is desirable (advantageous or needed to adapt to a new variable). Loosing the small toe would almost never be desirable over having the toe. It is a common fallacy that evolution weeds out features in a species that aren't used (like the small toe) but in fact evolution does no such thing.--Johnny 19:23, 6 July 2006 (PDT)
That's not true - evolution can and does in fact weed out features that aren't used all the time. It's just not nearly as likely as the weeding out of negative features or the propogation of positive features. If someone was born with only four toes and it wasn't disadvantageous enough to stop them from reproducing, especially in an isolated enviornment, then it's definitely likely that a civilization of four-toed people could come about. It's not only basic science, but pretty basic logic as well, so if there's something that needs to be deleted, it's "Johnny"'s incorrect post. --grendel824
Yes, I agree with grendel. Take wisdom teeth for example. People have said that they're slowly leaving existence. Pinky toes may have been bigger at one point in time, but as time moves on, evolution has been deeming them as "completely useless". I mean, have you ever tried to wiggle your pinky toe? It's borderline dead weight. But, if that theory is true, if the statue was made by an evolved species, why does it look so ancient? Could the island be in some sort of futuristic nexus?DrodJenkins 12:58, 30 June 2007 (PDT)
Regardless of who agrees with whom, Johnny is right about evolution. There are a lot of popular myths out there, such as loss of our pinkies, wisdom teeth, etc. The examples given for pinky toes and wisdom teeth don't prove anything. "People have said" and "it is said" are not proof of anything -- people say lots of incorrect things, and popular notions of evolution reflect a lot of misunderstanding. Regardless of how "useless" pinky toes may appear, we still have them, like our appendix, and there is no proof they are disappearing or will disappear over time. Evolution selects for preferred traits, not against unnecessary ones. That is the most important thing I remember from my evolution class in college. For a race of four-toed people to occur, not only one but BOTH original male and female donors would have to be mutant four-toed people, and it would have to be a trait that is inheritable, which is a dubious proposition. Of course, it's possible that the writers of "Lost" misunderstand evolution like many other laymen. But to be accurate, if you are going to include this evolutionary "theory," please include the rebuttal as well. Please review evolution and natural selection in wikipedia. Jpgwriter 04:32, 11 January 2008 (PST)
Colossusof Rhodos[]
What material was the Colossus of Rhodos made of? Since it it referred in here... Although i think this is nonsense anyways since the island is not in the mediterranian.
I saw a History Channel special on it one time - I believe it was made of bronze plating over some kind of wooden frame. It was destroyed in an earthquake and the pieces were left sitting for a long time. The theory is that the pieces were eventually recovered and melted down for use elsewhere. I don't believe the statue on LOST is supposed to be part of the Colossus in any way, but may have been partially inspired by it --Y2mckay 07:59, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
The Rhodos Statue was made of stone covered with bronze plating. so this statue cannot be the same. The stone would not have had detailed contours and the statue was most likely in the city, not near the ocean (although medieval myths often place it there)
I nominate this theory for deletion.
--aurora glacialis 11:49, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
Submersion[]
Could the fact that the foot is slightly tilted forward indicate that the rest of the statue may have fallen in that direction and is submerged? If the base is visibly off-kilter, it wouldn't take much for a 240 foot statue to lose it's center of gravity, would it? Maybe one foot broke off, and the other went down with the rest of the statue. --Beardog4314 16:45, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
It Could very well be the case. But for some reason, the more I study the pictures of it, the more it looks like just a lone piece that was dropped there on the rocks. I don't think the statue was built there (and since there was no sign of an ancient harbor or city around, why would it be?). I think that the foot got there the same way the Nigerian plane did. Of course, on this show, anything's possible. I just hope we learn more about it next season --Y2mckay 08:05, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
It's a little smart@$$, but the mental picture of a giant foot making a transatlantic flight (with people riding on the toes) before crashing on the island is very funny. I hope that's what happened!--Beardog4314 13:03, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
David and Goliath--references?[]
Is there a reference for the statement found under "David and Goliath"?
""David and Goliath" Theory
An early name for Goliath was Alwt, an anagram for Walt (someone with psychic capabilities)"
Pieces of arzt 12:58, 25 June 2006 (PDT)
Could the Statue be complete?[]
IIRC, there is a statue of an arm or leg -- not the entire person -- that was erected in a European town during the late middle ages because that body part played a key role in saving the town from destruction. What if the now-absent original inhabitants of the island had a story or myth wherein a four-toed foot played a significant part -- & there was never any more to this mysterious statue.
(I haven't added this to the article because I don't remember any further details about this unusual statue & a search at Wikipedia failed to identify the object I'm remembering.) -- Llywrch 10:02, 7 July 2006 (PDT)
white rajah theory[]
props to whoever came up with this; i'm a huge neal stephenson fan (and i have a feeling that someone on the LOST writing team is too; compare the allegorical elements of snow crash to the economic elements of LOST), and am slowly working my way through the (daunting, massive) baroque cycle trilogy. dunno how i didn't spot the parallels. and just for the record, cryptonomicon feckin pwns. some nice nanotechnology stuff in the diamond age as well, which might be remotely applicable to the show. --kaini. 19:17, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
i'm a big neal stephenson fan too, but i dont understand what you mean about comparisons between Snow Crash and Lost. Maybe you could explain further? Petrarch1603 12:23, 7 May 2008 (PDT)
Where should this pic go/if anywhere?[]
As seen through binoculars.
I capped that today and it seems nicer than the current main image, but the binocular parts make it dumb looking, but I didnt want to get rid of it because it's still cool..
--Sloths 09:46, 12 November 2006 (PST) <--- I forgot to sign this a couple months ago.
My LORD, that has FIVE TOES. You seriously need help.--CaptainInsano 13:48, 19 September 2006 (PDT)
Theory: Linking the Valenzetti Equation[]
Moved theory to page. --Inertia 23:53, 21 September 2006 (PDT)
Atlantis Theory[]
Under "Atlantis or Mu as the origin" there is a bit of trivia that says:
This could imply that the island is based on an underwater volcano, which would explain the prevalence of volcanic rock. (Though, of course, the series is filmed largely in Hawaii, which is made up of volcanic islands.)
This would also explain why the Black Rock (the ship) is so far inland - it may be that 200 years ago the island was almost completely underwater, and the ship could have run aground then, and been raised up with the island since.
With the prevailance of time travelers in the show, its possible that everyone is on the island of Atlantis, thousands of years in the past, which is why the island cannot be found in the present day, because it has sunk by the time present day has arrived.
The main issue with this is the fact that using the Volcanic Seamount Lo'ihi as a determining factor for speed: in 200 years there would be 21 feet of growth. Unless the island also has supersonic growth ability (which would cause massive tremors at alarming rates), I doubt this theory could be correct. Not only that, but what's it doing on the Statue page?--Onathinwhiteline 19:04, 26 October 2006 (PDT)
Seriously[]
Some of these theories are absolutely idiotic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beeth (talk • contribs) .
Separate page?[]
I was thinking of moving the Statue theories to the Theories page...but then there'd be nothing left in this article! Should I leave it alone? --Amberjet11 11:08, 14 November 2006 (PST)
Small reference[]
Claire also just had one sock done for Aaron while being drugged and kept by the others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomB (talk • contribs) .
Oooooooh, clever. (Isolation815 16:10, 16 April 2007 (PDT))
Isn't it? Exactly what I thought too. {TomB}
Shi-Tenno Directional Guardians[]
I thought this was rather interesting and could tie into why this statue is where it is...the fight between good and evil and mythology. I highlighted interesting characteristics of these statues in their description that could pertain to the island and its trials....
The Shi-tenno (literally, "Guardian Kings," but most often translated as "Directional Guardians") are deities, protectors of Buddhism, who guard each of the four directions of the compass (north, south, east, and west) from harmful and dangerous influences. Originally from India, the Directional Guardians were transmitted to China during the Tang dynasty (about 600 AD), and from thence to Tibet, Korea, and Japan. The Guardians appear in paintings, such as mandalas, and especially in temple sculptures, where they usually surround and protect a central Buddha image.
Stylistically, both sets of figures are obviously "Chinese;" their similarities are much greater than their differences, in spite of the more than 400 years between them. The Heavenly Kings are armored and cloaked; they carry weapons – trident and sword – and other attributes (see below). An animal head – probably a lion motif from Central Asia – is centered on their breastplates, and similar fierce animal heads guard their shoulders. Beneath their feet, the Guardians trample demonic figures that are usually descibed as "enemies of Buddhism;" these demons represent psychological states, such as ignorance, greed, and anger, which prevent people from receiving the Buddha's message. The "trampling" iconography is very old, and comes originally from pre-Buddhist cults in India, especially that of Lord Shiva. Three of the four trampled demons have cloven hoofs; the other one, trampled by Bishamon-ten, has four-toed feet and hands, which shows that he is a demon rather than a (five-fingered) human being.
Now with that being said, that statue could represent a demon. perhaps the others are demons? The psychological trials that the castaways have had to deal with definetly do centralize around these emotions...for example, Locke's anger at his disability, Jack's anger with his father, Hurley's greed with the food stash he kept etc. Perhaps it's just that the others AREN'T human and that is why they are represented as having 4 toes, as the demon is shown as being non-human because of the 4 toes and fingers. If they are indeed not human perhaps that is why they need the children. They use the children to essentially continue their species and then at a later date infect them with the "sickness" to turn them into one of them.
In Stephan King's Dark Tower series, to which many parallels can be drawn from Lost, there are non-human creatures called Taheen. They are humanoid, with animal heads, but some wear human masks to disguise themselves. They are very long-lived, and are mostly superior to humans physically and mentally, as it seems the Others are (Ethan Rom easily overpowers Jack, Juliette shows incredible reflexes and strength to overpower Kate). The Taheen, working for the Crimson King, oversee the Breakers, psychic humans working at a campus-like minimum security prison, where they are trying to destroy the beams that hold the universe together, and which run between the stations that bear a resemblance to the D.I. stations in Lost.
Hyperion?[]
(rumoured to be called "Hyperion")
I removed this comment from the main page. Can someone find any kind of source for this? --Doc 09:31, 16 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename from "Statue" (Completed)[]
I want to rename this to four-toed statue because "statue" is to generic. Statue can also refer to the virgin mary statues, the Jesus Statue in Hurley's flashback, the O-shaped rock near the Decoy village, etc. Statue to me is too generic and if you haven't seen Live Together, Die Alone yet, the link could lead to a spoiler. --Mr. Crabby(Talk) 13:35, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
Yep, Statue would better serve as a disambiguation. --Mr. Crabby(Talk) 13:38, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
Well I'd do that....if I knew how to work redirects and such. However, less I missed it we don't have an article on the Jesus Statue Hurley gave his mother so that won't need to be listed. Maybe add it to that catholic bit on the religion page. Hooper talk contribs email 10:45, 29 March 2007 (PDT)
I'm afraid Mr. Crabby may have misinterpreted your question, and consequently you may have misinterpreted his reply. I suggest leaving the discussion follow its course normally before you do anything precipitous that may have to be undone. -- Cheers(talk) 19:23, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename There might eventually be other statues on the island, and some fans might think there already are. Lets for sure rename this one to Four-toed Statue of even Four-toed Foot Statue. [--pom5msu] [--talk] 05:34, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename "Statue" should be a disambig page --Blueeagleislander 18:25, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename- Having something more specific sounds like a good idea in this case. -- Cheers(talk) 19:23, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename and create disambig page for thing such as Virgin Mary Statues, etc. -Mr.Leaf 19:32, 30 March 2007 (PDT)
Rename make this a disabiguation page, I think four-toued statue would be a better name for this.--Chef855 21:06, 3 April 2007 (PDT)
Wait - Right now there's just the one statue (discounting the essentially irrelevant golden Jesus statue). When we have an article on another statue then we can rename this page and set up a disambig page. Anything else is just making busy-work, and creating a disambig page for a single article is rather pointless. --Doc 13:45, 5 April 2007 (PDT)
That's everything mentioned here, is this an adequate disambiguation page to please everybody? (Isolation815 16:22, 16 April 2007 (PDT))
Yes, I think that worksFat Burger 11:37, 23 April 2007 (PDT)
Rename to Four-toed Statue, definitely. Blackannis 08:13, 29 April 2007 (PDT)
If no one else has any objections, I'll do this now... (Isolation815 16:58, 29 April 2007 (PDT))
I sent you a message on your talk page, this kind of thing for anyone besides admins is a big no-no --Mr. Crabby(Talk) 17:02, 29 April 2007 (PDT)
Yeti[]
I remembered Hillary's conquest of Everest and Tenzing Norgay's descriptor of the fabled Yeti, which had four toes on each foot. Here's a link to TIME Magazine: [2] "An old explorer's legend cropped up again last week—the "Abominable Snowmen" of the Himalayas. Reporting on his sixth expedition to Mt. Everest, British Explorer Eric Shipton described in the London Times a hard, four-day climb to a great glacier near the high peak of Menlungtse. There, in the thin snow, he found the well-marked footprints of a strange, four-toed creature. Sen Tensing, the native guide, identified the tracks as the spoor of two "Yetis"—the same weird ogres first reported by an Everest expedition of 30 years ago. According to awestruck natives, the Abominable Snowmen are half-man, half-beast. They have toes at the heels of their feet to help them climb and they live on human flesh, with an occasional yak thrown in." Also note the Disney connection. Disney's Animal Kingdom opened a new attaction c.2004 called Expedition Everest, in which the final turn of the roller coaster brings the rider face to face with a Yeti. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bongzilla (talk • contribs) 2007-04-08T11:28:07.
The Others[]
Have we ever seen Ben's or any prominent Other's bare foot?
--Van Tiki 12:38, 7 May 2007 (PDT)
I think we do at the end of "The Man Behind the Curtain", when they are walking into the base camp. I will have to dig up screen shots first though to confirm. From what I recall though their feet are not in good focus, so it may be hard to confirm. I cannot recall any other time they have been shown outright in clear focus. --Suddud(Talk) 21:21, 9 May 2007 (PDT)
I re-watched the end scene and none of the feet are shown in clear enough detail. Maybe someone with high-def could confirm, but at the same time removing a toe from a foot is something they'd only do with make-up for close up views of the feet. --Suddud(Talk) 13:33, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
Rename (to correct capitalisation)[]
Rename to Four-toed statue (lowercase 't' and 's'), in line with Lostpedia naming conventions--TechNic|talk|conts 18:39, 12 May 2007 (PDT)
Speedy rename: Cause I just like saying speedy. --Nickb123(Talk) 13:58, 13 May 2007 (PDT)
Unanswered Questions Cleanup[]
I deleted the two original questions below becuase they made assumptions that weren't even in the article and referenced a misunderstanding of the answer in Access Granted. The pertinent sentence is "Right and I think you know obviously the fact that they are Hieroglyphics and we found a four-toed statue that’s also something from the past." No reference to the statue being built by the Egyptians and the previous line only called the Hieroglyhics to be "sort of traditional Egyptian Hieroglyphics." The first question, without the Egyptian reference, is overshadowed by the "Why does the statue only have four toes?" question. The second question, without the Egyptian reference, is unnecessary because we don't know if the statue was built before the invention of ocean-faring ships or not. Wikistoriographer 09:30, 12 March 2008 (PDT)
Why did the Egyptians build a statue with four toes? (Lost Access Granted, Darlton claimed the Egyptians built the statue.)
How did the Egyptians get to an island on the other side of the planet? (esp. before the invention of ocean going ships)
'Tis bad wiki form to delete other peoples edits in talk pages. You would do better to strike-through the text and/or archive off to sub pages - but you should never delete talk page comments. Unless this is your wiki and you can do whatever you want with it. --Mespinola 14:04, 17 March 2008 (PDT)
For the record, I didnt delete peoples talk page comments, I deleted questions from the main article that didn't make sense. I put them into the talk page for the benefit of anyone that disagreed with me that might want to replace my deletion. Since noone has, I'll assume my edit was proper. Thank you for making me feel like a bad member of the community, though. Wikistoriographer 10:01, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
It was a poor assumption on my part I guess. You said you deleted other people’s questions, but there was nothing to discern as to which page. So the default assumption was that it was the same page (this talk page). I don’t know why any of this would make you feel bad. As you can see from what I wrote, I specifically mentioned talk pages. Since it doesn’t apply, there isn’t anything to feel bad about. Plus, what did I write that was "hurtful" to you? I would honestly like to know future reference. --Mespinola 09:26, 29 April 2008 (PDT)
Skanda and the Dharmapala[]
I have been doing some of my own research on the foot and other various imagery we have seen in the series. I think the foot may be that of a Sri Lankan Bodhisattva statue. A Bodhisattva is an 'enlightened-being' in Hinduism. This could be particularly relevant to the Lost time-line splintering aspects, as Bodhisattvas encompass the present as well as all of their past lives to achieve that enlightenment.
I made a connection to Bodhisattvas from researching Sri Lankan statues because:
There is an image of a Sri Lankan statue in the brainwashing video. This statue could be of a Bodhisattva.
Sri Lanka is known for giant statues.
Ancient Sri Lankan statues have been known to have four toes.
In relation to the Sri Lankan Bodhisattva statues, there is a Chinese Bodhisattva called Skanda. Skanda is a "Dharmapala who guards the Dharma".
A Dharmapala is a type of wrathful deity. The name in some contexts directly means "Dharma-defender", while Dharma translates into the “way of life”, specifically as laws that keep the universe together: Sanatana (eternal) Dharma (laws of nature). A Dharmapala is a defender or protector of that law. All of this falls under the general Hindu concept of RTA, which is the "the "order or course of things". Dharma is the philosophical foundation for RTA.
Now, I don’t claim to know all of this specifically, but considering the type of lore that the creators seem to use for different events and aspects of the island, I think this might just fit. Comments and discussion welcome. --Mespinola 14:47, 17 March 2008 (PDT)
Season 4?[]
Didnt a producer/writer or somebody say we were going to learn more about this in season 4? :\ --Xbenlinusx 14:22, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
Well there are two less episodes b/c of the strike so it might've been pushed to S5. --CTS 14:22, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
I highly doubt it's going to be explained in the first 2 episodes of S5, and that if it were planned for season 4, there would have been at least 1 episode leading up to it or discussing it. We were lied to, and I know there are few other things that were going to be "explained" in season 4 that have never been brought up, I think like Rousseau's background (the actress is now living in Europe, so much for that!). Is there a list somewhere of what people on the Lost team said was going to be explained this season? Because I'm fairly certain, 90% of it has not been explained. They just blow smoke at the fans. --Xbenlinusx 20:54, 18 May 2008 (PDT)
Time Travel[]
We still have to remember that the Island still has strange 'time' issues, with it being slighly faster than the outside. I'm not quite sure if this fits in at all, but maybe time travel has something to do with it... --JeremyBentham 09:43, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
Could Sawyer be the statue?[]
Now that Sawyer et al have become unstuck in time, and Sawyer's injured his foot (in a scene that was given far more significance than would seem necessary), could Sawyer eventually become a four-toed man (on account of a deeply infected toe) who becomes a heroic, statue-worthy figure in the island's deep past?
Mstemmle 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Vulcan???[]
I know it has five toes... but....
I recently visited Vulcan Park in Birmingham, AL and discovered this exhibit... close up of the foot of Vulcan which is part of a larger installation in the park... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davecny (talk • contribs) 2009-02-22T21:25:50.
Sorry, bu that's ridiculous. It's the same argument which was used with the temple, and it was overruled by consensus. Michael Lucero*Talk*Contributions
--This was confirmed in the commentary during the repeat broadcast of LaFleur on March 11, when Sawyer's group is observing the statue. It said that the statue was the same as the four-toed statue. Merge them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaar (talk • contribs) 2009-03-11T20:09:40.
--i agree that is rediculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omggivemaafningusername (talk • contribs) .
I should remind you to keep your discussions civil and neutral. I argued to overrule the discussion for the temple, because it was named as the temple during the episode. However, it is unknown whether there were multiple statues on the island, which in my opinion seems likely. So please refrain from blindly calling others comments "ridiculous." It is insulting and not in good faith. -- Sam McPherson T C E 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It should be mentioned of course but isn't the broken statue in front of some very large mountains? In this scene it's flat terrain right out to the statue and the ocean. --Hugo815 03:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Either way, the mountains aren't a determining factor because the group is obviously on a higher level since they are looking at the rump, rather than the heels, of the statue. I think it would be silly to show us a statue in a flash, and it not be the statue, but that's just me. We'll know when we know. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that it was likely that there are multiple giant statues on the Island as we have only ever been shown 1. To me there can be no question that the giant statue that Sawyer and Co. saw is one in the same with the one spotted by Sayid--WhyDidntUKnow 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(Should this be under Theories?, If so, sorry and feel free to move/delete as necessary). Does anybody think that the statue's face will be someone that we know? Showing the statue's back in that shot is required to be in agreement with the orientation of the foot that was shown earlier. At the same time, I think obscuring the face gives a nice reveal that could be used later on. I can't think of anyone who is unaccounted for, can you? George47 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How can we ascertain it's Horus when we don't even see the front of the statue? That's way too much assumption. -- Xbenlinusx 03:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, while it has an extremely egyptian design to it, there's absolutely no basis on which the identity of the statue can be confirmed at the moment.
I'm unfamiliar with the Egyptian gods, and I'm unsure how those assumptions came about. Present-day Tunisia is relatively close to present-day Egypt, so I assume that the ancient Egyptian civilizations are relatively close to the Tunisian "drop zone". If Hydra's polar bears ended up in Tunisia, perhaps an Egyptian statue could end up on the island. Although the means of transport differ, this reminds me a great deal of the Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. George47 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to go ahead, since this is discussion after all and assume that it is Egyptian, judging by the Ankh found on Paul, the husband. Also, has anyone thought that it's possible Richard Alpert could have some sort of Egyptian background judging by the "eyeliner." I know he's stated that it's just the eyes, but it is possible since LaFleur/Sawyer made a reference that he actually is wearing eyeliner unless it's just a joke. IN any case didn't most of the Egyptian pharaohs and such wear eyeliner? I'm seeing a lot of similarities here. Not to mention my guess for the statue is Anubis, judging by the ears and the fact that he looks like he's holding an ankh and a staff...just a guess and a theory... Angel of Anubis 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It was totally a joke, in reference to fan questions about "guyliner". ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
While it PROBABLY is the statue previously seen, we don't even know that so some distinction should be made. The bit about it being the Egyptian god Horus is CLEARLY a theory with NO supporting facts so far. This should be immediatlely removed from the main body of the article. Lanpesci 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we should totally create separate articles. It's completely plausible that the producers would go out of their way to show us another, new giant statue instead of the one we already know. --Golden Monkey 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, and to echo that, Horus had the head of a falcon. The statue clearly has ears. I think maybe people are getting a little too excited about the Horus idea because it would be so cool to make the connection to Horace. Zholmboe 06:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)zholmboe
I think it's obvious that this is the same statue. Think. What would be the reason of introducing a second statue without answering the question about the first one? The same was with Walt and Room 23: It was never said in the mobisode that it was Walt, but everyone knows it was him. --KemotfromPoland 18:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The image evidence just doesn't bear out this "obviousness". The two statues seem to be situated in different places. Who's to say there weren't a dozen statues at one time? Robert K S (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
We know there weren't a dozen ginormus statues on the Island at one time because the losties have only ever found the runes of 1. If there were even a half dozen more giant statues to be found don't you think we would have seen at least 1 other giant statue remain by now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhyDidntUKnow (talk • contribs) 2009-03-09T10:45:31.
While I agree it's not 100% certain, the scene was obviously meant to draw the viewer in to think, "Hey! That's the whole statue we only saw the foot of earlier." Seeyardee 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)seeyardee
Tutankhamun in Egyptian sandals
I have been spending so much time looking at the giant statue for clues that I haven't spent any time looking back at the 4 toed foot for clues. Now that I've done so, I realized that the sandal on the foot could be a pretty big clue. The vast majority of Egyptians didn't wear sandals at all, and I haven't been able to find a single image of a deity represented in sandals. I have looked through hundreds of different styles of sandals from ancient Egypt, and not a single one seems to remotely match the sandal on the 4 toed statue. As best I can tell, the four toed statue is wearing a simplified Roman sandal. [3] I hate to say it, but I think this means that there may be some valid arguement behind the giant statue and the 4 toed statue being different. If not, that is a pretty big oversight by the producers. Egyptians made their sandals from either woven plant material or leather, however leather was considered unclean. It seems almost unthinkable to find a statue of an Egyptian god wearing leather strap sandals (since the woven plant material clearly doesn't look like the flat straps on the 4 toed statue).
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 03:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
How is it not obvious that the fact that they are different colours, and there for different materials, means that are definitely different? check out my addition to the theories page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerpersang (talk • contribs) 2009-03-11T22:49:54.
Question: Answered - <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed rename to 'Ancient Statue' - Discuss[]
'Ancient statue' does made a lot more sense, and can be merged with the article for the ancient statue seen in 'LaFleur'. ...Though, personally i don't don't know if I'd want it to be, it does make sense to rename but it's been come to be known as the four toed statue by everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timeshifts (talk • contribs) 2009-03-08T19:30:59.
For the time being, I disagree. I mean we don't know for sure that this is the same statue. --Seba5618 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Rename Even if it isn't the same statue, it's still ancient. --KemotfromPoland 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagree for the last three years it has always been called "Four toed statue" by fans, why on earth would we want to change that now?
Disagree I also disagree. It should be known as the four toed statue like it always has been. Integrated (User / Talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to be more clear about what this proposal means: Rename to "Ancient statue" and Merge with Giant statue. The merged article will still have two separate sections: "Four-toed foot" and "Intact statue." We still don't assume the two statues are the same. But even if they are two separate statues, they should both go on the same page. We don't have separate pages for each DHARMA van that shows up. All DHARMA vans go in the same article, just as all giant statues should go in the same article. --Cornprone 04:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree The Four-toed statue is fine and well known, but that could be redirected to the new page. I'm fine either way. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree 'The Four-toed statue' can be named in the heading as a popular nickname. As soon as we have identified the name of the god(dess) the name of the article has to be changed anyway. --LOST-Hunter61 06:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree Need to rename the page the main page to simplify things. Jnorton 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagree, fans know it from the very first appereance as four-toed statue, and it is far more catchy name, but do make redirect from ancient to four toed. - EXCALIBUR
It's not clear to me why "ancient" is any more evocative or unique a descriptor than "four-toed". Robert K S (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree its better for it to be more general. The lead can say "The Ancient Statue (Also known as Four-toed statue and Giant statue) ..." --CharlieReborn 09:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Bad, bad move. There is no canonical reference that states that the two are one and the same. The rationale used for declaring them as such is the non-canonical enhanced episode. See: Official_Lost_Podcast/March_19,_2009. Jinxmchue 02:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Several theory discussions that took place on this page instead of the theory discussion page have been moved to the proper place where those discussion have room to conintue, if so desired. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Enhanced Episode?![]
I haven't seen the enhanced episode, but the text on that image - "the only remnants of this giant statue" - I would think is prefaced by something about the foot. How do we find out? -- Xbenlinusx 06:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Found the text, it's the same statue!
"In the Season 2 finale / "Live Together, Die Alone" / Sayid, Jin and Sun saw a giant 4-toed foot / the only remnants of this giant statue." [4]
-- Xbenlinusx 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
You're a bit late to the party (the music's off and there are just a few stoners left passed out on the floor), but hey, grab what's left of the chips and salsa and that off-brand beer that nobody liked, and have a ball. :-) Robert K Stell me 06:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I just realized this. =p -- Xbenlinusx 06:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Except, of course, that enhanced episodes have been directly declared by the producers as being non-canonical: Official_Lost_Podcast/March_19,_2009. Jinxmchue 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
And, where is your canon evidence that they are different? Provide that, and I'll be convinced that this conversation is worth re-opening. We have to work with the best evidence we have, and BEFORE the enhanced episode many people were already prepared to name them the same statue. The enhanced episode may not be canon, but it is the most definitive evidence we have at this point in time. As the producers also said, the show is like "cliff notes", meaning it is at least "semi-canon". The people who write these notes certainly have more access to the production room than we do. Your trivia point that it is not "sure" that they are the same statue could be better written, but is appropriate.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
In case there was any doubt remaining, in the Official Lost Podcast/March 26, 2009 Cuse and Lindelof confirm it's the same statue. It's at about 6:55 in. --Cornprone 11:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
North/West Side?[]
Sat phone shows helicopter moving north from beach camp
The article currently says that the statue must be on the west or north side of the island. I agree that is true if the boat was moving clockwise around the island, and there is certainly some evidence to support this. However, there's some contradictory evidence that suggest they were moving counter-clockwise. I don't think either set of evidence is conclusive at this point, but until either set is, I think that a location of north or west can't fairly be asserted. Here's some evidence to the contrary: after they find the statue and have gone to the fake camp, but while they are still heading in the same direction (be it clockwise or counterclockwise), Sayid points a direction he says is north, with the coast on his left side and ocean on the right (I'll post an image later this evening), implying that the boaters are on the east side of the island. ("Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1") ("The Glass Ballerina") Also, the helicopter carrying Keamy and pals goes due north of the camp before landing, once the survivors reach the helicopter, the Orchid station is described as being northeast of the helicopter, again, implying they were on the east coast. ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 1") ("There's No Place Like Home, Part 2") Given that the Orchid is near the statue, the statue would have to be NNE of the camp. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of evidence the other way, I'm simply saying that this is inconclusive, and therefor we shouldn't assert that we know on which coast the statue is. Maybe there's someone who sails, and can reconcile the conflicting views by explaining some sailing strategy where one would change direction a lot.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You've done a lot of good work on your user page regarding Island geography. Keep it up. Here's a more general question for you. Is it your opinion that the writers have been working from a definitive map of the Island from the very beginning, and discrepancies have only cropped up in spite of that; or that, the writers initially had no map and played fast and loose with the geography, and only later decided on an Island map (in which case, when do you think that occurred?); or that the writers still continue to play fast and loose with Island geography and neglect entirely any fixed Island map? Robert K Stell me 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Inland crater on way to beach camp
I really don't know. It seems like the Lost producers take care to be consistent, even to go so far as to hire a "continuity expert", and they have said things that imply that Rousseau's full map has some validity, like, for example, that one of the islands off of its coast has represented Hydra Island from the beginning. That sort of attention to detail makes me think that they probably had a basic map, like Rousseau's, that they have been using from the beginning, adding items to the map as they add new elements to the show. That said, as I have been going through clue by clue (as you mention you have seen on my userpage), I sometimes think that I'm more confused now than I was before. Sometimes I even experience the paranoid thought that they are intentionally trying to mess with us, and that, for example, every time the island moves, the directional orientation of the island changes too. Even so, there are too many "what if"s to worry about, so I keep trying to reconcile all the information as if it is consistent. I do sometimes get the impression that they are less careful in their filming than they are in their mapping, however. I doubt the continuity expert follows the fill crew everywhere making sure their angles are correct. For example, the fact that in the pilot they showed a sunset from the first beach camp, exactly where it would be if they were on a northern coastline, tells me that it was probably filmed on a northern coastline (it was), but not necessarily that the producers intended for us to elucidate their coastal orientation from it. Sometimes their filming angle is determined by the angle from which they can film a location without catching civilization in the background. For example, if they turned 180º from the perspective they invariably show the Flame Station, they would see a freeway. And I can’t be sure, but I doubt that when the film crew showed a massive mountain behind the Tailies on their way to the main beach camp, that they expected some scientist like me to know that the peak’s outer geography was that of a crater, and then to assume it must be some clue about the island’s geography. But I can't help thinking, what if they did???
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just saw an article stating that Gregg Nations, the continuity expert, has apparently been keeping a map of the island since after the 1st season. [5] It seems like there should be some sort of set map, then. I'll just keep working on figuring it out.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The statue is located on an inlet, not a straight run of coastline. Therefore, as they sailed around the hump on the west side of the Island, loosely following the coastline into the concave part, there is coastline to aft and port somewhat, as well as to starboard. (1) Island coast to port (2) Statue to port (3) Sayid praying with Island "hump" they just sailed around to aft I can't find where you refer to "shortly after they find the statue Sayid points a direction he says is north, with the coast on his left side". The next scene with the boat after finding the statue is Sayid's prayers interrupted by Jin spotting the rock; after that, we don't see the boat again until "The Glass Ballerina", at which time we see they have rested on the shore with the signal fire, and the map they are using to plot the rest of the trip illustrates them on the west side of the Island with the intention of going North. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are the images I promised, organized by scene from "The Glass Ballerina".
Sayid, Jin, and Sun are waiting at the first signal fire, arguing about whether or not to continue north.
1: Sayid points north (arm mostly obscured by Sun), as he says, "If he's north of us, the mountains would..."
2: Cut to Sun & Jin, on Sayid's right side, Sayid continues, "... block his view."
3: Back to Sayid, who gestures northward with his hand, "We need to sail forward along the coast, clear the mountains, and start another signal fire."
Sayid points north, with land to his west, so the second image shows East, which is open ocean, implying that they are on the eastern coast.
Sun is helping Sayid continue on to the north.
1: Boat heads forward with land at starboard, implying that they are going clockwise.
2: Forward is clear, no big surprise, but...
3: So is aft...
4: And so is starboard... So where is the land???
5: Port, implying that they are sailing counter-clockwise.
They've almost arrived at Pala Ferry
1: Land appears to be forward, that's no help
2: Aft certainly seems to be clear, meaning they aren't heading away from the island, still not much help.
3: Look carefully forward and to the right you'll see that the land comes to a peninsula, again implying that they are going counter-clockwise around the island.
I hope I am clear when I say that I know you could the exact same thing to show that they are going clockwise, but that's exactly my point, the direction they were heading is unclear. Almost everything in "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1" shows them going clockwise, but most of "The Glass Ballerina" shows them going counter-clockwise. From the little bit I have been able to glean about sailing in just this evening (so I would still love to hear from a person who actually knows about sailing), there seems to be a lot of back and forth in going any one direction, which might explain the confusion, but leaves us no closer to figuring out which direction they were heading.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Heading counter-clockwise looking aft
Heading counter-clockwise looking forward
And how about this: to get to the orchid, near where Sawyer, Locke, et al. reunited with Jin, they went counter-clockwise from the beach camp "a couple hours". ("The Little Prince") ("This Place Is Death") Since the Orchid appears to be near the statue, this seems to indicate that the statue is counter-clockwise from the camp. These aren't great images, but they were the best images I could get for the time being, and I suppose they're good enough to illustrate the point.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to come back to digest the other ones above when I have more time, but I wanted to comment on these two. This is an anomaly, isn't it? Like the Exodus that changes direction? Or is it possible they headed anticlockwise ("around that point, a couple hours") to paddle with the currents rather than against them, since they have no motor? It would then be a "2 wrongs don't make a right, but 4 lefts do" kind of thing, no? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's been a week and a half since I posted the contradictory evidence, and no one seems to have been able to explain any reasons it could be moot. As such, in order to avoid leaving potentially incorrect information on the main page, I have removed the assertion that the statue must be on the western or northern side of the island. As an interesting note, I was reading the transcript from an old podcast (I don't remember which one exactly), but they said that they have two directors of photography that switch off for each episode. It might explain why the two episodes seem to disagree with each other.
<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"The Shadow of the Statue"[]
Why is this bit about "What lies in the shadow of the statue?" being included in the opening of this article? We don't even know if it refers to this statue yet, so why is it being included at all, much less in the opening (which implies great importance)? --Managerpants 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I moved that whole sentence out of the opening and to the end of the main part of the article (just before Trivia). --Managerpants 10:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Anubus"[]
To me it seems that the recent showing of the statue has a sort of snout jutting out of it. and with all the signs of Egyptian relics and heiroglyphics, this may be the jackal god Anubus. Ag2013 01:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's Tawaret. See the ears, ank being held, also the connection with an opposing being of evil whom it holds in check (Jacob and his enemy), and connection with fertility. Michael Lucero*Talk*Contributions
It's not Tawaret. Her form is a crocodile for a back not a head but its a close guess. Its obviously not Anubus at this point. Its actually a rather classic statue of Sobek Sobek. It has all the classical features, Crocodile head, Ankh in the right hand. Also the number four recurs repeatedly in the Sobek mythology prime examples being: He represented the four elemental gods, Ra of fire, Shu of air, Geb of earth, and Osiris of water. He captured the four sons of Horus, etc etc. Its worth pointing out that Sobek doesn't directly fight evil too but rather "undoes" it or reverses whatever evil has done which may play into the theme of things. --Bobtheanth 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. It IS Tawaret. Tawaret has crocodile teeth. Compare
It might be popular to want it to be Anubis since that is a one of the more popularized Gods of Egyptian mythology, but the statue clearly has the head of a crocodile, not a Jackal. dposse 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Taweret was a pregnant hippo. Doesn't carry and Ankh the same way Sobek does. Tawaret is mainly depicted kind of resting on the two ankhs. Sobek carries the ankh. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. Taweret does carry Ankh, sometimes two... Whereas Sobek is not always depicted with any Ankh, and even then only one. Sobek also carries a staff, which this statue doesn't. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. More important than the number of Ankhs (a number are depicted in various ways, typically with one Ankh and a staff) is the fact that the statue is a human with an animal head. Tawaret is a hippopotamus depicted with various crocodile features. She is consistently represented as animalian, pregnant and with swollen breasts. MBeckstrand 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Sobek has mouth shut, no hippopotamus ears, different hat. He has only one ankh. Taweret has two ankhs, crocodile teeth, mouth open. --Ireader 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's defiantly not Sobek. Sobek only has one Ankh, and he's holding a staff. The statue has two ankhs, one in each hand. Taweret seems to be the only logical choice. dposse 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? We're deciding this based solely on what we commonly see the figure holding? Maybe you should look more at the uniquely identifiable features: no saggy boobs, not impregnated, and, most importantly, NOT a hippopotamus. Taweret isn't just a human body with a hippo head; it IS entirely a hippo that is pregnant. This statue is a HUMAN body with an ANIMAL head. It's much more plausible that it's Sobek, but we still can't be sure until it is confirmed by a reliable source (e.g. Darlton).--Pags 02:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Disagree with it being Taweret, didn't the producers say that the statue is male? Taweret is female and fat. This statue looks male and kinda muscular.
AaronPaige 15:27, 14 May 2009 (EST)
FROM BLOG: Lost fans will see the last angle of the ancient, Goliath four-toed statue on the two-hour May 13 season finale. “You’ve seen its foot. You’ve seen its back,” says exec producer Damon Lindelof. Now at long last, the face will be revealed. Michael Emerson, who plays Benjamin Linus, hopped on the computer and did some research of his own after he realized that the same figure is represented on wall carvings in the island’s underground temple. “She’s Taweret, the goddess of childbirth,” concludes Michael, referencing the pregnant, hippo-headed Egyptian deity. “That dovetails in pretty well with our themes, wouldn’t you say?” says Michael, who also discovered that whom Taweret mates with, and when, is of great relevance. --Ireader 19:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's super neat, thanks for sharing. An actor on the show did research in the same way that we do. Maybe if it said "Michael Emerson called Damon Lindelof who told him explicitly that 'Oh, hey Mike, yeah, the statue is actually Taweret!'" then I would take this as some sort of legitimate confirmation. At this point in time, the actors know just about as much as we do about the show. This quote from Michael Emerson is irrelevant.--Pags 02:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
All the depictions of Sobek I have seen do have ears. It looks a lot more like Sobek to me. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I still don't get why it had more of a masculine looking body and didn't look feminine. --User:AaronPaige 16:31, 14 May 2009 (EST)
Probably because it isn't feminine at all, i.e. it is a god and not a goddess, i.e. IT IS NOT TAWERET. GET OVER IT! If the writers and producers end up confirming that this statue is Taweret, then they really did a horrible job of portraying a pregnant female hippopotamus with thunder thighs.--Pags 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Okay, all the crap about Tawaret, Sobek, Jesus H. Christ, Gary Oldman, Elvis, whoever anybody thinks it the statue may be needs to not be put into the article itself until there has been confirmation or compelling evidence. Especially the part where somebody straight out said "The statue was revealed to be the egyptian goddess Tawaret", a statement with no basis TDiNardo 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's Tawaret. Crocodiles don't have ears. Michael Emerson's statement. The official episode recap. But if we're not going to put in statements that it's Tawaret, then we should also edit out mentions of Sobek as well. Michael Lucero*Talk*Contributions
Great observation...crocodiles don't have ears! They also don't have human feet and human hands...and a human torso. Thankfully, Sobek isn't simply a crocodile. He's an ancient Egyptian god who is depicted as a MAN with crocodile features. Guess what Taweret is? A PREGNANT (i.e. huge belly) HIPPOPOTAMUS. Not just a human with a hippo's head...an actual, entire hippopotamus. Does that statue look like a pregnant hippo or a man with a lizard-like head? Seriously people, think outside of the box. Stop holding onto your false hopes of Taweret.--Pags 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Taueret appeared as a hippopotamus standing on her hind legs with pendant breasts, SOMETIMES with the back of a CROCODILE and the feet of a LION (lion, you know, the 4 toed king of the jungle)[User:Nevrozeman|Nevrozeman]] 02:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC).
I think we should leave mention of exactly whom the statue depicts to the appropriate Theory page until there is a canonical confirmation. MBeckstrand 02:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
All you need to do is a google image search of both Taweret and Sobek and compare the results to Ilana's cloth picture. It's obviously Sobek. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't. Its obviously Taweret, same face, ears, headdress, carrying the same items as Taweret... Also the ABC.com recap, written by Gregg Nations says it is Taweret! It doesn't appear to be pregnant sure, but has anyone stopped to think why that is, on an island where its very, very dangerous to concieve and give birth to child?? -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
But the inability to give birth (conceiving doesn't seem to be a problem) only seems to have come about post-incident. Considering Amy gave birth to Ethan and Miles was born there. Why would the statue not be pregant? If it is Taweret I'll be very disappointed. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My two cents: I think its SObek. Reasons: Jacob and the other guy are obviously opposing forces, Jacob is pro life, saving ppl and stuff, and (cliche) dresses in white... the other guy is in blasck, all evil and hates evrything... So I take Jacob is Sobek (god of life n stuff n good) and the guy in black is Anubis. And all there is is that the island is a place where two gods were imprisoned, need humans to keep busy, anubis kills em and sobek revives em, Sobek / Jacob tries to make humans help him to do seomething (maybe control the island /garden of eden powers)and Anubis/dude in black wants to avoid it... like the typical confrontation between good and evil, so like all godlike thing humans can only kill gods, thats why anubis uses Ben to take out Jacob, and hes just pissed for he not having a statue (lol). So if it were Tawaret I would take Jacob to be a woman maybe?... ABC is just misleading you, JJ is lying, they just want controversy to arise (lol)... And if they dont look exactly like taweret or sobek or anubis, wouldnt you think theres a little thing called poetic license? If they put one ankh insteaad of two, slightly different ears or even if the fabric is from left to right... thats just misleading things :)
So tahts Lost for me:
Anubis and sobek live in the garden of eden, the energy that can control time must be guarded by Jacob / Sobek and as always Anubis/other guy wants to take over... Humans are the tools for the gods, Jacob wants them to learn (wouldnt surprise to be a wisdom tree around) and anubis other one wants to rule and kill and destroy... but as a wise one said once: "what good will it do for bad guys to destroy everything, where would they rule or who woiuld they rule over... bad guys can be dumb sometimes"
--Rocketo 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Rocketo
"Tawaret"[]
It is Tawaret, this is stated in the Official ABC LOST summary of 'Season 5-The Incident pt 1'.
Which are not canon, as they are written by random ABC writers, not the producers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 2009-05-14T18:54:56.
It should be noted that while he is not a producer either, Michael Emerson also said the statue is of Tawaret in a pre-finale interview. ShadowUltra 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
From the picture evidence, I think we can clearly conclude now that it definitely IS Tawaret. I suggest adding this to the article. Monsterfurby 00:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Are you blind or something? Try moving your face back a few inches away from your computer monitor. Does that statue look like a pregnant hippopotamus to you? I think people are forgetting that Taweret is a hippopotamus in its entirety. It's not like other Egyptian gods who are depicted as having a human body with an animal's head. Taweret is entirely a hippo. A very fat one with saggy boobs. This statue is neither a hippo nor does it have a huge belly with saggy tits.--02:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Tawaret is not always depicted as entirely a hippo [6]Amyshmamy 22:56, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
You, good sir, may consider yourself owned by now. Have a nice day. Monsterfurby 21:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Then it is a poor representation of an ever-pregnant, hippopotamus-bodied female. I think reference to specific Egyptian deities should only appear on the appropriate Theory page. MBeckstrand 02:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly no way we can say who the statue is. Someone keeps changing this page to claim that we know it is Tawaret. --Ghtx 17:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It could very likely NOT be either Taweret or Sobek or any other ancient egyptian god. The writers may have made it purposefully ambiguous to prevent referring to a specific representation. To say that the statue is specifically one or the other rules out major other possibilities as to why the statue was built in the first place, e.g. for fertility or protection. None of the aforementioned deities have been specifically represented with four toes anyway, does this mean that its something completely new or fictional?ScatteredBlackAndWhites 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It is Taweret : so far only the back of the statue has been broadcasted. In season 6 we will see it completely, i.e : pregnant and with big and pendant breats. Also Taweret has the foot of a lion. And how many toes does a lion have ? Yep, 4. Main functions of this goddess : in childbirth, Taueret suckled and protected the newborn. In the underworld, she carried the deceased toward a new destiny. Well, newborn babies seem to encounter some difficulties on the Island (due to the destruction of the statue?)...as for carrying deceased toward a new destiny, I'm sure Locke and Christian could surely contribute to this topic. Remember me on the day the statue will be fully unveiled, cos' I'm sure I'm right on this.Nevrozeman 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It is clearly Sobek. Given what Jacob has done and is doing in terms of the Losties and their current and past encounters, the fact that he lives in the statue, and the definition of Sobek and his place in Egyptian Mythology, all of this clearly points to Sobek. Taweret is a much lesser god and looks nothing like the statue, which does look clearly like that of Sobek. I suggest people do more research on the signifigance of what the God s stood for in order to clearify who the statue really is. And for teh record Sobek was also a fertility God for those arguing that Taweret is the only God of fertility--Jdilz28 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Picture[]
Ilana finds a picture in a pouch, stuck to the wall of the cabin with a machete. It seems to be a picture of the complete statue standing on the island, but the picture is cut in half.Why is it cut in half, and why did she take it? It does not seem to be a map. What is on the missing half of the picture? Presumably something - a boat? Another statue? Another Island? Also, the picture is a cloth weaving. Did Jacob make it? --AllanJack 02:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Relative Ages[]
It seems to me that the shot of the statue seen in LaFleur was more orange/red then when we see it in The Incident, Parts 1 & 2, where it seems more gray. Correct me in I'm wrong, but in general statues and rocks get grayer as they age. Therefore I submit that "Chronologically" the earliest time we see the statue is during Lafleur, and not during The Incident as the article currently states. Flashesb4ur8s 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the four-toed foot in "Live Together, Die Alone" a left foot, while the foot in "The Incident" a right foot? The amount of visible platform seems to support this, since in LTDA there's more platform to the right of the foot, whereas in TI there's none to the right, but plenty to the left. LOST-Gilgamesh 11:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The same thought occured to me also. Perhaps there are two. It's not unreasonable for there to be more than one such statue. In fact it should be expected. --Oc3 13:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. They are the same. --Ireader 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced they're the same either. The platform extending out from the left foot we saw in "Live Together, Die Alone"
seems MUCH larger than the platform in "The Incident". Are we certain we're not looking at a left foot in "The Incident"?
User:davecny
The pictures in the article prove they are both the same foot from front and from back. I think you are misremembering. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the angle of the legs, it seems much more likely that it is the left foot. The illusion comes from the lack of the "instep", I believe it is called. But the angle is exactly the same as the left leg of the whole statue.-- c blacxthornE t 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This statue's notability is no longer based on the fact that it has four toes, which I think is more than enough reason to rename the article to reflect the fact that it is indeed a statue of Taweret, which I have no doubt will prove important in the coming season. -- Sam McPherson T C E 18:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and renamed the article to "Statue of Taweret," as this is much more descriptive, and I can see no logical argument not to rename. -- Sam McPherson T C E 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Sam you can't rename stuff based on your personal theory. There has been no proof at all Taweret is the statue, especially since Taweret should have a hippo head not a crocodile. So I'm just gonna go ahead and change the name back to The Statue. --D Toccs 00:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to D Toccs. A vote might have been a logical argument to rename, but to my mind moving the page without a discussion is simply wrong. Btw: I'm aware of the ABC recap that calls the statue Taweret, but as you know these information are only semi-canon (as per LP:C). --DerAndre(talk) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually we're gonna need a mod to clean up the mess he's made of this article. --D Toccs 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, Gregg Nations writes those abc recaps. I kinda trust him. Lets go with Tawaret InflatableBombshelter 02:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? Has Gregg Nations seen Season 6 yet? Oh wait, no he hasn't...because it hasn't been filmed yet. Seriously, everyone, please stop for a few seconds and think. Taweret is an entire hippopotamus. A pregnant hippo. A pregnant hippo with saggy boobs. Does that look like a pregnant hippo with saggy boobs, or does it look like a human torso with an animal's head? Stop acting like you know something is true for your own personal satisfaction.--Pags 02:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No, Gregg Nations has not seen Season 6 yet. However, he has read the script that Damon and Carlton gave to him. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Cool, and I'm sure that the script makes no mention about who the statue represents. If it did, it would probably be made known via dialogue, e.g. "Sun asks Richard 'Jacob lives there? Did the rest of the statue used to be a statue of Jacob?' Richard responds to Sun 'No...no the statue wasn't of Jacob. It was of the Egyptian Goddess Taweret.'" THAT would be canonical evidence. However, it has not be confirmed in the show or by the writers in a podcast that the statue is of Taweret. We have ZERO CANONICAL CONFIRMATION. Even if he has read the script, this does not mean that he knows the statue is Taweret. My point about Season 6 was that we probably won't have in-show confirmation of who the statue represents until Season 6. So unless Gregg Nations has read scripts from Season 6 (which he hasn't since they haven't been made yet), then this ABC summary is NOT canonical confirmation; thus, the article should not be definitively renamed as "The Statue of Taweret." This does not mean that it should be named "Statue of Sobek" either. We have NO confirmation about who the statue represents. Michael Emerson's comment is not canonical either since he was presenting HIS theory (very much in the same way that everyone on lostpedia is) based on his personal research.--Pags 03:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Scripts often have added knowledge that is not shown on the show, in order for the prop department, etc. to more accurately represent the show. -- Sam McPherson T C E 03:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If this was the first script that had explicit information that the statue is of Taweret, it would have been made known in the dialogue of the episode. I highly doubt that the writers of the show would hide such significant and desired information in the details of the script solely for the prop department to be better off when creating the CGI of the statue. Also, they probably didn't say "The statue will be of Taweret" in the details of the script considering that the statue BARELY looks like Taweret (minus 4 toes and POSSIBLE the shape of the head).--Pags 04:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
See, that's all speculation. All these opinions that you have that they "wouldn't" do this or that are irrelevant, because there's no way it can be confirmed. Your reasoning does not overrule what ABC has on their website. -- Sam McPherson T C E 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
And all of your comments are also speculation. Furthermore, it is illogical to think that the writers would include such a huge and significant detail outside of the dialogue of the first episode about Taweret when, in fact, the statue looks virtually NOTHING like Taweret. ABC cannot confirm things canonically UNLESS the writers/producers are being quoted or if something is revealed in the episode/a podcast (e.g. Richard says to Sun that the Statue is of Taweret). The fact of the matter is that it has NOT YET BEEN CONFIRMED CANONICALLY. The writers/producers have said nothing and the episode has not revealed anything to us. That's just the reality of the situation.--Pags 04:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Here are the facts. We have the most evidence to assume that the statue is Taweret. Michael Emerson thinks it's Taweret and ABC has confirmed it to be Taweret. It will remain Taweret until proven otherwise, because we have sufficient evidence to state that it is. I doubt that ABC would get their facts so wrong on a widespread recap page. -- Sam McPherson T C E 05:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Michael Emerson is just as informed as we are. He did RESEARCH, just as we do, to THEORIZE what the statue might represent. This is NOT canonical confirmation. Also, the ABC review, which is written by Gregg Nations, is not canonical either because he is not a writer or producer for the show--Pags 03:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
true, but Taweret has seen, very early in Egyptian history, as a deity of protection in pregnancy and childbirth... --Sharon1234 Talk Flashback 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, what's your point? Your comment has nothing to do with Taweret being canonically confirmed. I mean, it's interesting to know that, but it doesn't confirm anything. It might support your theory more, but it's still a theory and not a fact.--Pags 03:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
The ABC recaps are actually a quite trustworthy source—more so than the other areas of the ABC site. Not only are they written by script coordinator Gregg Nations, as has been pointed out, but they are also based off the actual scripts. -- Graft talk contributions 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That's great and all, but I'm 99% sure that if the script contained an explicit statement about the statue being Taweret, it would have most likely been made known via dialogue! Here is an example of what I'm talking about: "Sun asks Richard 'Jacob lives there? Did the rest of the statue used to be a statue of Jacob?' Richard responds to Sun 'No...no the statue wasn't of Jacob. It was of the Egyptian Goddess Taweret.'" THAT would be canonical evidence. However, it has not been confirmed in the show or by the writers in a podcast that the statue is of Taweret. Just because it's "quite trustworthy" still does not make it a canonical confirmation. We have ZERO CANONICAL CONFIRMATION. Even if he has read the script for 5x16-17, this does not mean that he knows the statue is Taweret. If this was the first script that had explicit information that the statue is of Taweret, it would have been made known in the dialogue of the episode. The writers wouldn't hide such significant information from us in the details of a script. My point about Season 6 was that we probably won't have in-show confirmation of who the statue represents until Season 6. So unless Gregg Nations has read scripts from Season 6 (which he hasn't since they haven't been made yet), then this ABC summary is NOT canonical confirmation. Stop deleting this comment--Pags 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Yes, there is a lot of evidence to support THEORY of Taweret being the Statue; however, this is not the Theory page. This is the actual article. Michael Emerson's comment is NOT canonical confirmation. Furthermore, the statement on the ABC website is NOT canonical either. Both comments were made by "viewers" of the show (Michael Emerson is just as much of a viewer as we are until he gets access to future scripts of future episodes which we have not yet seen). A canonical confirmation is one that would be made by the writers of the show OR by a revelation in an episode of the show (e.g. Richard says to Sun 'That statue represents the Goddess Taweret!'). Thus, there has NOT been a canonical confirmation about the identity of the Statue. Conclusively, the title and contents of the article should not definitively state that the Statue is of Taweret.--Pags 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
article should not be renamed until further evidence is displayed. Lets face it - if it is meant to be Taweret, its a pretty poor depiction. It doesn't have the pregnant belly or the female "characteristics" shall we say that I would associate immdiately with Taweret. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
only the back of the statue has been shown, its (her) torso has NEVER been seen. As for the 4 toes, Tawaret is lion-feeted, and lions have four toes. Finaly, she is not only the goddess of fertily (its destruction could explain why childbirth on the island is so complicated) but also, in the underworld, carries the deceased to a new destiny, and Lost provides us with an orgy of evidences that the dead ones can have striking destinies.
Every image of Taweret that I've seen is of a very rotund hippopotamus. The fact that she has four toes, and holds two ankhs are quibbling I think. The basic structure of the statue is much more akin to Sobek, regardless of what the episode recap says. However, because there is some support from the Lost establishment for Taweret, I suggest retaining the neutral "The Statue" title, and referencing both Taweret and Sobek in the article. --Offput 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
"It will remain Taweret until proven otherwise" - sorry, but I am absolutely not okay with that. This is supposed to be a fair discussion about how people think about this problem, but if a sysop just renames an article and furthermore blocks it to prevent edits by authors who aren't agreed to that solution, there's something really wrong. --DerAndre(talk) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Or blocked to prevent edit wars, Andre. Lesser of two evils. -- Sam McPherson T C E 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? Is that the only reason? Because if you were going to be FAIR about it, you would have kept the title and contents of the article neutral, i.e. it would just say "Statue" and would contain no mention of Taweret, Sobek, etc. Then you would lock it. That would be fair and would be the lesser of two evils. Considering you're a sysop, it would be very easy to just neutralize the content of the article and then keep it locked. It seems that your intentions for locking the article are more than just preventing an edit war. It seems that you're locking it and leaving it entitle "Statue of Taweret" for your own personal satisfaction. Consider both/all sides of the argument and keep it fair by keeping the article neutral until it has been 100% canonically confirmed. Not 95%, not even 99.9%. When we are told with 100% certainty the identity of the statue and we are not simply guessing, speculating, theorizing, hoping, et cetera, THEN you should rename the title.--Pags 04:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
The summery on the ABC website is not credited there-for we do not know if the developers have any say in it. The editors of the website are just of ABC.com as far as we know they have do direct contact with Carlton or Damon. I think we should wait until confirmation by Podcast by the developers or in the show. The name should be Statue on the Beach; or Unknown Statue. --LOST-Frink 07:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The page has been moved back to "Giant statue" until this discussion is resolved. All definite mentions of the statue being Taweret have been removed, though the ABC confirmation remains. Please do not change the article to confirm any Egyptian God. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is absurd.[]
Before the finale, I was a big proponent of the theory that this statue was Taweret. Now that I've seen it, I'm less certain. I still believe it to be a likely candidate, but to rename the article "Statue of Taweret" based on a theory that (correct me if I'm wrong) appears not to have been confirmed by anything canon is an abuse of the wiki. There is good evidence that this statue is Taweret, and there is good evidence to the contrary.Mslade 14:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The ABC recaps are evidence. I can see no concrete evidence to the contrary. -- Sam McPherson T C E 14:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The concrete evidence to the contrary would be LACK of canonical confirmation made by the actual TV show or by the writers.--Pags 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Images of Taweret
Images of Taweret --Ireader 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The points highlighted on these images are ridiculous. Four toes? What about the other 2 images where one has 3 toes and the other has 5? And you're completely ignoring the fact that its a female statue and is pregnant. The islands statue is not. ScatteredBlackAndWhites 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ireader, Exactly. Not only do the two look alike, but it's been confirmed by ABC. Until proven otherwise, we have substantial evidence (from Michael Emerson and Gregg Nations) that the statue is Taweret. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of Emerson's claim was that it was simply his guess, which should be no more canon than yours or mine. Regardless, you won't have to twist my arm. The image provided by Ireader is nothing new to me; if you look in the history of these theories pages you can see how hard my wife (vvAndromedavv) and I had to fight just to get Taweret listed as a legitimate theory a few weeks ago. Anyhow, I didn't realize that ABC had canonically confirmed that it was Taweret and this seemed like over-zealous editing as per usual. Thanks for the clarifying in the main article where your information came from. Mslade 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I should have posted my reference in the opening paragraph much earlier than when I did. It had been in the trivia section, but was not easily noticeable. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally would have liked to have seen a call made by the producers before renaming the page. There are several characteristics of the statue that simply do not fit the depiction of a goddess, particularly THIS goddess. The kilt that is in place is a specifically male kilt, attached to a very masculine form. The producers have also referred to the statue as a 'he' a couple of times. If it is, in fact, Tawaret, then oh well. Honestly, it's kind of a mythology fail. Kvairson 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Kvairson
There is NO evidence that the Statue is Tawaret. It doesn't even LOOK like Tawaret. It's a cocrodile, not a hippo. The name Tawaret hasn't been said on the show, and the producers haven't confirmed it, and Abc it's not really canon. It's like trusting a record label that a musician wrote a riff because they felt angry at the world: what do they know?! It's the musician who needs to confirm, and in this case: Lindelof and Cuse. Do NOT rename it, and please, someone delete the "Tawaret" from the article, and at any case, add a trivia that Abc called it Tawaret, but it's NOT confirmed. --Samus88 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Look up above and you will see IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO BE TAWARET BY ABC... R9tgokunks 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
THE SUMMARY ON ABC'S WEBSITE IS NOT CANONICAL; THUS, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED YET.--Pags 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
Capitalized and bolded text will get neither of you anywhere. The canonicity of the recaps is currently being discussed; there is reasonable evidence to believe that they are canon, considering their author. -- Sam McPherson T C E 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is currently being discussed. It has not being confirmed. There is reasonable evidence to support claims and theories about Taweret being the statue, but there is not CANONICAL evidence. Thus, stop acting like the Statue actually IS of Taweret. You're treating it like it's a fact when it is still just a theory. Yes, a theory with lots and lots of super duper evidence; however, it's still a theory--Pags 04:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
ABC =/= Lindelof/Cuse. Also there is the simple physical fact that it... doesn't really look like a fat hippo chick. If ABC put on their site that Better Off Ted was an intense psychodrama about one man's inner struggle to survive his human resources job, would we believe that?Kvairson 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that renaming this to "Taweret" is absurd. What happened to a vote? It looks like there is one moderator/sysop/whatever who is convinced that one offhand reference by the "semi-canon" ABC episode recap (which I've never even heard of before this) and one offhand reference by an actor is enough to confirm the identity of the statue. Which, let's face it, is most likely Taweret, but it hasn't yet been confirmed. This should be changed ASAP. --Ghtx 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No. It shouldnt. It is CONFIRMED TO BE TAWARET BY ABC. What is wrong with you people... R9tgokunks 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
THE SUMMARY ON ABC'S WEBSITE IS NOT CANONICAL; THUS, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED YET.--Pags 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
It was NOT CONFIRMED TO BE TAWERET BY DAMON OR CARLTON. Some random ABC dude writing that article doesn't make it canon. Morris729 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So, if an official ABC enhanced episode, says something, it's not canon, but a Abc recap is? Come on. It hasn't been confirmed by the Producers, who are the one who run this show, and it hasn't been said on scree, and not to mention that the Statue does NOT look like Tawaret (the MALE HUMAN body gives it away), and if it is, then they did a crappy job about it. --Samus88 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The latest Wired issue had a lost puzzle which eventually was decoded into "The four-toed Statue is Tawaret". According to the person who made this puzzle, he was contacted with a specific clue to use. Here's his blog : [7]Makahari2000 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Locked?[]
Why is the article locked for editing? Is it because of the confirmation of the Taweret stuff? --LOST-Frink 06:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It's been locked for the prevention of edit wars. -- Sam McPherson T C E 12:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that this article is locked is almost as absurd as the fact that it has been renamed to "Taweret." When did wikipedia become a dictatorship? Revolt! :) --Ghtx 13:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dictatorship is the right word for that. --DerAndre(talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And this is Lostpedia, believe it or not. --Blueeagleislander 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not a dictatorship because you are allowed to express your opinion freely with and argue as much as you like. However there are people (not one person as a dictatorship would be ;) )in charge for a reason, because otherwise everyone and anyone would alter articles to fit their own opinions, and keep doing it.--Integrated (User / Talk) 06:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is locked to prevent the edit wars that raged when it was unlocked. Changes can be discussed on the talk page. -- Sam McPherson T C E 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I can understand locking to prevent edit wars if that was a problem, but until we have confirmation the article should have the name Taweret removed. The ABC recap is NOT CANON. This article should be returned to its previous state of simply being called the Four-Toed Statue until we know more, and I believe returning it to such a neutral name would also solve any issues related to edit wars. Morris729 06:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You have presented your opinion, but the Sysops opinions override yours. That's how the site works. It's probably locked because some people would change it back if it was unlocked without discussing it. You can present all the arguments you like but you aren't allowed to alter it from Taweret because the Sysops have spoken. --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wired solution really did it for us. The critical clue having been placed in the show itself, and the issue being edited by canon source Abrams, we feel it is both definitive and canon. Should we be wrong, no biggie. We'll change it. In the meantime, this is the best available information, and that's what a wiki should always operate on: the best available information. Robert K Stell me 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Not Tawaret (Maybe Set?)[]
Lindelof and Cuse stated that they wanted to make the statue 6 toed before ABC said it was "too weird" and made them change it to 4.
Clearly not a pregnant hippo and maybe combination of hippo and crocodile, Set was commonly depicted as either.
It makes more sense for the statue to be that of a major god, (Isis, Osirus, Horus, or Set).
We still have not seen the statue from the front. Let not go jumping to conclusions.--Rames 07:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
We can jump to conclusions all we want. Its confirmed to be Tawaret by ABC. Sorry... R9tgokunks 07:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming to one ironclad belief: Someone is keeping this still vague to drive us all crazy for half a year. Kvairson 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Two Statues
If they can change past or future, then the statue could become Sobek, Set or… still Taweret. Why? Look at the difference between two versions of the Statue (color, haircut, distance between feet, right or left foot ahead, ankhs' orientation, skirt pattern, trees on the shore). But NOW it is definitely Taweret. Sorry. --Ireader 14:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's the same statue, and it's Tawaret. Color fades over time in stone and statues. We were probably shown the statue in two different time periods, the reddish one probably being the earlier one. The "haircut" (more likely a headdress) is exactly the same in both: down to the shoulders, and then slightly pointed further down between the shoulder blades. Both show Tawaret's hippo ears, and that crown thing. As for the feet, it's just a difference in angle. One is shown from the back looking dead on, the other is shown from the back at an angle. Michael Lucero*Talk*Contributions
What about skirt pattern? --Ireader 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is only one statue and it's just a screw up. --DerAndre(talk) 16:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Realy? They look different, aren't they? --Ireader 18:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
They look IDENTICAL. There has never been any indication that there is more than one statue. --Integrated
I highly doubt it was a production error. I believe there are possibly four statues that were on the island each facing North, South, East, and West. Why couldn't this be a production error? Because the CGI guys would have saved the 3D-model for future use.--LOST-Frink 06:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no.. you're very right that they would save the models, but in an episode where they are paid to have the statue appear on screen for like 2 seconds from a distance, they could get that done with an amount of roughness.. then probably months later when they are doing the finale (and what we as viewers don't realise is they don't make the show instantly and perfectly, they are only human) the producers may say "Ok it was mostly good in that previous episode but let's improve this little bit here, and this bit here, as we're now going to be seeing it on screen very close up let's spruce it up a bit" and the CGI guys do what they're paid to --Integrated (User / Talk) 06:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There is ONE statue, standing on the same place, but its versions are different in time. --Ireader 06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Confirmation[]
The Wired Magazine May 2009 issue, edited by JJ Abrams, has several puzzles in, one is Lost based, and it reveals the statue to be Taweret. This has come directly from JJ Abrams, one of the creators of the show. Because of this, and the ABC.com information, it is now perfectly clear that the statue is indeed of Taweret, it is canonically correct, and as such the article has been moved back to Statue of Taweret and the contents been altered to reflect that. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly it's too bad that this has been confirmed, IMO this should be considered a production error as every where I look this statue seems to more closely resemble Sobek then any other egyptian god that I have seen --WhyDidntUKnow 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Lousy storytelling! It should be clear from the show; one shouldn't have to read an article to find these things out. I'll accept that it's supposed to be Taweret, but dudes, that is not a pregnant hippopotamus. Idledandy 02:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree. I'll concede that it's Taweret. But it's a really bad Taweret. Tuttlemsm
Is it lousy storytelling or our insatiable urge to know things before the producers are ready to reveal them?
JJ confirms; okay, but he ain't writing the show.
ABC.com confirms; okay, but have you read some of that stuff ABC puts out? The recap for Part on of the Incident said that the sub hadn't submerged yet. Huh? What did the producers show us the week before?
The Wired Magazine clue was either an April Fools Joke/Misdirection, or the answer to the puzzle is incomplete.
First clue: According to Lostpedia, the wired magazine article appeared in the May 2009 issue. According to Wikipedia, the article appeared in the April 2009 issue. I did some searching and found a picture of the magazine cover that says it is the May 2009 issue. Then I checked the edit history of the Taweret Wikipedia article. If I am reading the View History correctly, then a user named "A. Parrot" added the April 2009 reference in a 1 Feb 2010 update on Wikipedia. The lost episode "LA X" was broadcast on 2 Feb 2010, one day later. So who is "A. Parrot"? I started looking at his other Wikipedia edits, but there are close to 500 and I got bored after looking at the latest 50.
Second Clue: After seeing the finale, it is clear that the island is a place where souls are given the opportunity to let go of those things that keep them from passing on. The only thing Taweret has in common with the afterlife is that she was occasionally believed to be the consort of Sobek.
Third Clue: Considering what we learned in the Lost finale, the wikipedia article on Sobek is extremely illuminating: "Sobek's ambiguous nature led some Egyptians to believe that he was a repairer of evil that had been done, rather than a force for good in itself, for example, going to Duat to restore damage done to the dead as a result of their form of death. He was also said to call on suitable gods and goddesses required for protecting people in situation, effectively having a more distant role, nudging things along, rather than taking an active part."
Fourth clue: The Taweret entry in wikipedia states that she was sometimes considered to be the consort of Sobek.
So I believe the puzzle in Wired magazine was either a misdirection, or the answer is incomplete as "The 4-toed statue is Taweret's consort" would actually be correct.
Two Statues[]
In Live Together, Die Alone, Sayid and company are traveling westward on a boat and the statue is off to their right. In Follow the Leader Richard agrees to take Locke to see Jacob (who lives in the foot of the statue) and they start heading east. Both of these groups left from the same beach. This leaves four possibilities: sloppy editing/continuity, one of the groups circumnavigated the island, intentional reversing of the camera angles for some reason,or there are two statues. I think this merits inclusion somewhere in the article since the first two are highly unlikely and the latter two indicate something bigger going on. --ISawDivinity 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I think the fact that the two groups clearly went in opposite directions and both ended up at a foot is what should be mentioned on the page somewhere (perhaps in the trivia section) not the suggestion that there are two statues, let people form their own conclusions. --ISawDivinity 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Try describing the routes of travel as clockwise and counter-clockwise.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is a editing/continuity error "highly unlikely?" The creators have made and will continue to make lots of editing/continuity errors. Jinxmchue 17:44, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
The woven picture which Ilana took from the cabin was cut in half. The existing side showed the statue standing on the island. It may have been cut in half because of something which was on the other half of the picture.--AllanJack 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sayid's boat was sailing clockwise when he passed the statue. Evillocke's group was walking counterclockwise on the coast. Even if we accepted both of these, it would not even suggest two statues. Because if A and B are points on the coast of an island, you can get from A to B by going clockwise or by going counterclockwise -- there is no contradiction.
However, the producers have in fact been inconsistent with what direction people are going on the island. One of the most egregious examples also involves a clockwise/counterclockwise inconsistency -- see Through the Looking Glass#Bloopers and continuity errors.
Even if you forget about Sayid's boat trip, Evillocke's route makes very little sense. They walk along the coast from (RC) Richard's camp to (OC) the original Oceanic camp to (ST) the statue. Moreover, it was shown many times that the Looking Glass cable on the beach is counterclockwise from the original Oceanic camp (there were three or four trips made between the camp and the cable, and they were consistent about this point). So we can say for certain that the Looking Glass cable location (LGC) is between OC and ST, because the Losties certainly didn't walk past the statue during their many trips between their camp and the cable in seasons one, two, and three! So Evillocke's path along the coast was RC - OC - LGC - ST. From RC to OC was a long walk, because the Others (who are very hardy folks) had to rest when the arrived. From OC to LGC is a long walk, as established in earlier seasons. So the entire walk along the coast was extremely long. And this makes no sense. Why would they walk along the coast at all? If the path is that long, it would make much more sense to walk a straight line between RC and ST across the island, where it's easy to walk, instead of walking along the often rocky shore! — Lawrence King(talk) 06:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can't say that it's "easy" to walk across the Island. We've seen plenty of hills, crevices, and rivers... not to mention the huge volcano! But the main point is, there aren't two statues. The MUCH more likely explanation is just that someone got confused regarding the directions, whether that's the fans who think there's a discrepancy or the continuity man. --Managerpants Contribs Talk 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In "Live Together, Die Alone, Part 1" Sayid et al do appear to be traveling clockwise from the beach. However, in the next episode in which they appear, "The Glass Ballerina", they are traveling counter-clockwise around the island. The most consistent direction of the statue has been one that is counter-clockwise from the beach camp. The 4 main points can be seen below, more detail can be found on my user page:
In "The Glass Ballerina" they are traveling counter-clockwise. Sayid also indicates, by pointing North, that they are on the east side of the island.
In "There's No Place Like Home, Part 14x13" the GPS units show that the beach camp is on the southern coast of the island, and then show that the Orchid, which is right next to the statue, is NNE of the beach camp. That indicates that the statue is on the eastern coast, which would be most easily reached by a counter-clockwise route.
The new images of Rousseau's map show "Ruins of unknown origin" on the east coast of the island.
Reconstruction of the bottom row of the tapestry. We discover third island (?) with three hills, three hieroglyphs, three ships. Greek line at the bottom saying: "...only they have seen the end of the war". --Ireader 07:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a third island. The hills represent the Island, with the statue standing on its shore. Robert K Stell me 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Jin saw the full statue - when did that happen on the show? --Minderbinder 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the intended meaning there is "fully-intact statue". He probably didn't see it all the way down to the feet in "LaFleur". -- Graft talk contributions 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Direct References Only[]
The rule for the Cultural References is "Direct References Only". None of the things currently listed under Cultural References (Headlong Hall by Peacock, On a Stupendous Leg of Granite by Smith, or the Colossus of Rhodes) are directly referenced in an episode and therefore, should be removed entirely or placed in the section on fan theories.--Faraday100 03:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have moved those entries to the Tawret Statue theories page.--Faraday100 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Demolition before 1974[]
Why doesn't it say that it was partially demolished before 1954? None of the survivors saw it in 1954 during The Lie or Jughead, which leads me to believe it was just a foot then. It's pretty hard to miss!
Jonty 13:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't say 'demolish'. Only humans could 'demolish', and we don't know how the statue fell down. It should say that the statue was 'destroyed'. I'd edit it myself, but the page is protected.Bobbobato 15:22, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
The word "demolish" doesn't only refer to human action, in connotation OR denotation. --Managerpants Contribs Talk 15:32, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone ever addressed the continuity problems with the various times the statue (or parts thereof) has been seen on-screen? For instance, we originally see the four-toed foot from the front in "Live Together, Die Alone" and it is a left foot. However, in later side-views, it appears to be the right foot of the statue. Or how about the rear-view of the statue in "LaFleur" where the statue's legs are obviously some distance apart, but in "the Incident," the legs are clearly touching? Jinxmchue 18:18, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
There are no continuity errors. It's always a left foot, and the legs are never touching. It's all a matter of perspective. One of the legs is in front of the other, which is why from the diagonal angle it looks like they're touching. --Managerpants Contribs Talk 03:37, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Office building height estimate[]
Just wanted to point out that 240-250 ft is not even close to a 30-story office building height. That results in a story height of 8 ft, and that's ridiculous. There would be no space for HVAC or structural members. In reality, the typical office building story height is closer to 14 feet, putting it closer to a 17-18 story building and that's not including a lobby or roof.
Plugging in 15 stories results in a building height of about 240 ft (73.1 m), so I'd suggest changing the line to read: "about the height of a 15-story office building".
The Black Rock was a very small (and wooden) ship. So if the ship would have crashed against the (head of the) statue, that couldn't have been enough to destroy Tawaret... but the ship would have been destroyed, and she wouldn't have been 'put' so softly on the ground some miles inland with so many survivors on board...
Apparently the official reason for the end of the statue was the 'tidal wave'... shouldn't it have been another phenomenon? T6435bm 15:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty clear that the statue was destroyed by 200ft tidal wave plus Black Rock. As to how the Black Rock survived the impact -- well, we do not know a lot about Jacob's ability to bring individuals to the Island. From the conversation he seemed to be implying he was responsible for bringing Richard here. I'd note there was an unusual lack of injuries in the crash of Flight 815. Spiral77 16:27, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Statue site cleaned up[]
It's a potential continuity issue in that there are obvious large pieces of statue rubble around in 1867, and they are gone by 2004. Did someone clean up the site? Not to mention the sheer size of that wave would have scoured all that vegetation (including the tree to the left) away. --Pittsburghmuggle 23:37, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Given the crazy storms that Jacob uses to bring people to the island, it's not hard to believe that the rest of the statue got washed a few feet under the sea. Whereas beach trees are specifically evolutionary geared towards having strong roots and very bendy branches (and Oahu probably didn't want Lost to cut down their flora). It seems like the swell of water has the most impact at it's cresting point, and so would do more damage inland when the swell point diminished. The tree would temporarily be flooded, but wouldn't get much actual impact force. --Jackdavinci 07:01, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
Does seem to be a bit of a discontinuity in lack of jungle damage on the Black Rock crash... but the beach looks pretty different in 1867. Given we first see the statue wreckage in 2004 -- it's 140 years later and they've already established there's some weird tides on the Island in S1. Spiral77 16:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
My theory is that "Mother" (as seen in "Across the Sea") is Taweret.
She pre-exists the arrival of the brothers.
She is on the island when the boat carrying Jacob & MIB's mother arrives. We are led to believe that the "other" people on the island arrived with them.
The brothers' real mother was speaking Latin to "Mother" and she replied.
My theory is that whoever arrived with the brothers was of Roman antiquity... possibly they found evidence for the island in the sacking of Alexandria... an island of "immortality" and/or unknown power.
At any rate, my theory is that she was exiled to the island long ago... possibly an ancient "Mother Goddess" or something equivilant, and was tricked onto the island or trapped there by the emerging patriarichal gods...
She is the goddess of birth, fertility, etc... BUT remember that if you conceive a child on the island, you can't give birth to it ON the island??? Maybe the electro-magnetic "power" interrupts with the birthing process in some way, thereby punishing her with no babies around ever.
Then, here comes a mother, and "Mother" delivers her babies, and kills her to keep them as her own.
Later, Jacob, still blindly loving his "Mother" constructs a memorial to her ... the statue.
?
Dunno, just a thought...
Joshdartist 02:47, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Please keep theory discussion to the appropriate space. This page is for discussion about the content of the article and how to improve it, not to propose or discuss theories... Robert K Stell me 03:28, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
possible.. though there is little other egyptian iconography that we see with her to suggest this (Slide Away 21:54, May 24, 2010 (UTC))
Western shore?[]
Currently the intro states that the statue is located on the western shore of the Island. Given the contradictory evidence as to the statue's location, I don't think such an assertion can be made. Is there any conclusive evidence that the statue is located on the western shore? --Celebok 17:29, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Despite all the contradictory evidence shown in seasons 5 and 6, I still believe the statue is on the western side because when Sayid took the boat around the Island to the Decoy village he had the shore on his right, and he even marked on the map what portion of coastline they were following which was the western shore. I believe it comes above the other evidence because it specifically shows where it's at. With the evidence pointing to a southeastern shore you have only people walking with the Island on their left. That's not enough to warrant as better evidence than the other. Also if it were on the SE coast wouldn't the Tailies have seen it when they trekked to the Beach camp? They walked mainly along the coast because of the Others, and only stopped when they came to the crater separating the two southern coasts. --LOST-The Cartographer 18:38, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
See, I think the evidence for the statue being on the eastern or southeastern side is strong enough to contradict the western-side evidence, to the point that we can't make a definite assertion in the article. The thing with the evidence during Seasons 5 and 6 is that it's consistent from the first time we see it, through the rest of the series. In "The Little Prince", Locke's group rows the canoe counter-clockwise from the beach camp to get to the Orchid, which we know is near the statue. In "Follow the Leader" and "The Incident", we see Flocke leading the Others from their camp, passing by the Losties' beach camp, and reaching the statue, always shown walking counter-clockwise. And in "The Substitute", we see Ilana, Frank, Sun and Ben carrying Locke's body from the statue and arriving at the beach camp coming from that direction. If at any of those moments there was an inconsistency in direction, I'd argue that the eastern-side evidence is unreliable, but it appears that the production crew decided to disregard what Season 2 showed and establish the statue as being on the east coast. As for the tailies not seeing the statue, it's still possible that they cut inland before reaching the statue, since we don't know how far they would've had to travel along the coast to reach the beach camp. Note that I'm not arguing that the eastern-side evidence is stronger than the western-side, but that it's strong enough to contradict the western-side evidence to the point that the statue's location is inconclusive. --Celebok 06:02, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot of evidence to support THEORY of Taweret being the Statue; however, this is not the Theory page. This is the actual article. Michael Emerson's comment is NOT canonical confirmation. Furthermore, the statement on the ABC website is NOT canonical either. Both comments were made by "viewers" of the show (Michael Emerson is just as much of a viewer as we are until he gets access to future scripts of future episodes which we have not yet seen). A canonical confirmation is one that would be made by the writers of the show OR by a revelation in an episode of the show (e.g. Richard says to Sun 'That statue represents the Goddess Taweret!'). Thus, there has NOT been a canonical confirmation about the identity of the Statue. Conclusively, the title and contents of the article should not definitively state that the Statue is of Taweret.--Pags 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Pags
"It will remain Taweret until proven otherwise" - sorry, but I am absolutely not okay with that. This is supposed to be a fair discussion about how people think about this problem, but if a sysop just renames an article and furthermore blocks it to prevent edits by authors who aren't agreed to that solution, there's something really wrong. --DerAndre (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The page has been moved back to "Giant statue" until this discussion is resolved. All definite mentions of the statue being Taweret have been removed, though the ABC confirmation remains. Please do not change the article to confirm any Egyptian God. -- Sam McPherson T C E 15:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
