Talk:Tomb of Kha and Merit

FYI French translations

I don't speak French so the work by Bruyère and others has been translated using Google Translate, which I have then cross-referenced with the various plans and figures so I'm preeeetty sure the text is correct. If it isn't, please alter it accordingly! Merytat3n (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian either so information from Italian sources that don't have English translations (Ferraris 2018) was obtained using Google Translate. Merytat3n (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Kha’s feminine statuette

I find it hard to believe that it depicts a man. Is there a reason for why his statue looks so feminine? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? All of the aspects of the statue are standard for depictions of men in the period. Women were never depicted with apron kilts and wigs in that style, with women instead being depicted in long gowns and usually with longer hair. Floral garlands were pretty common aspects of funerary paraphernalia, with them being draped over mummies, furniture, and even being strewn around tombs. A similar statuette style-wise that depicts a woman would be the Statuette of the lady Tiye, which is near-contemporary to the statuette of Kha and exhibits aspects standard to depictions of women in the period. Star11308 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:TT8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 06:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Looks like a thoroughly researched article, close to GA status, but there are a few snags.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   There are a couple of passages I had problems with:

• "The texts align across the lid and base, but Dennis C. Forbes suggests that they were not intended to go together as the treatment of the wig is different between the two halves. The discrepancy in design may instead represent a merging of the typical two-coffin set into one." I gather that these sentences are intended to lay out two distinct hypotheses, but that wasn't entirely clear to me on first reading. It would help to say that Bettum has suggested the second hypothesis, to make clearer the parallel with the first hypothesis and its attribution to Forbes.

Done

• "It is unique within the known Eighteenth Dynasty examples for including Chapter 175, which features the origin of Heliopolis and the myth of the divine cow." This statement will be puzzling to most readers. I know what it means, though I checked the standard Faulkner translation of Chapter 175 and found the allusion to the rebellion of mankind (as seen in the Book of the Heavenly Cow) is pretty brief and vague, and I don't see anything that strikes me as a reference to the mythical origin of Heliopolis. (Chapter 175 is probably better known for including a reference to the possible predestined end of the world, though I don't know whether Kha and Merit's copy contains that part of the text.) I know you can't really elaborate on the significance of BD 175's inclusion because Trapani doesn't say anything else about it, but under the circumstances, I'm wondering if it might be better not to mention what BD 175 contains.

Agreed, done

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Most of the reflist is fine, but there are a couple of problems:

• The citations to Vassilika 2008 don't connect with the works cited. Are they erroneous references to Vassilika 2010, or is Vassilika 2008 another publication that is missing from the works cited?
• Gardiner and Weigall 1913 isn't listed either.

Fixed. Those were both mistakes and forgetfulness on my part

1. b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   Most of the article concerns concrete facts, and the more speculative points are supported by the sources.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig's tool points out similarities in wording with some of the papers cited in the article. While most of the overlap seems to just be the presence of citations to many of the same sources, this article does share the phrase "despite their relative wealth at death" with Trapani 2012. Consider rewording.

Rephrased I hope

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The only opinions I notice are related to the quality of the artwork, e.g., "beautifully painted pyramid chapel" and the "technically brilliant craftsmanship" of Amenhotep III's era. If I remember correctly, the art-history community on Wikipedia has occasionally given pushback on the idea that such judgments violate neutrality, given that they are widespread in art history sources, but I think it's best to quote and attribute those opinions to the authors who express them.

Removed

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Having a gallery of miscellaneous images is discouraged by the image-use guidelines. If it were a gallery of burial goods, that would be one thing, but some of the images are floorplans and photos from the excavation. It would work better if these images were integrated into the body of the article at relevant points, and the gallery dedicated specifically to burial goods.

Would the additional images be best integrated as a small gallery within the relevant sections as is seen in the little trial gallery in the "Sarcophagi and coffins/mummies" section and in other pages such as Tomb of Tutankhamun or Pyramid of Sahure or should as many as are relevant be put into the main body of the text, at risk of it looking cramped? Either way the main gallery can illustrate burial goods only as you suggest :)

You certainly don't want the text to be cramped. I think a few images can simply be cut; e.g., the image of the wooden door and the image of the corridor blocking aren't especially informative. People who want to see everything can still look at the Commons category. As for the images you decide to keep, splitting up the gallery into smaller galleries for specific sections (like the one you already have for Merit's coffins) may be the best option. The puzzle is the plans of the chapel and the tomb, which I think are among the most valuable images in the article and should probably be integrated into the text rather than a gallery, but which could cause crowding if they were simply added in to those sections as they are. Maybe you could insert the chapel plan in TT8#Location_and_description and then at the bottom of the section have a gallery of the chapel exterior photo, the chapel interior photo, and the pyramidion. I don't know, just spitballing.

I've done as you suggested, made some room and swapped some images around. I think it definitely looks better! I then took it one step further, maybe too far, and made some more small galleries in TT8#Personal possessions, TT8#Furniture and furnishings and TT8#Food and drink that contain 3-4 select images to give an idea of what is mentioned in each section, trying to mostly stick to objects mentioned. Someone other than me has added loooots of the Museo Egizio photos to Commons haha so I had plenty to choose from! Dunno if I made the right choices : T I moved the images of coffins to the gallery in TT8#Sarcophagi and coffins and left the gallery with Merit with two photos of her. I removed the gallery at the end of the page.

Looks good to me.

1. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I really appreciate your thorough and careful review! Merytat3n (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Merit's wig

• ... that the door to TT8 was locked when the tomb was discovered? Source: "A heavy wooden lock, such is used in the present day, held the door fast." Weigall, Arthur (1911) The Treasury of Ancient Egypt p.178. See reference list on TT8 for url of source
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Merytat3n (talk). Self-nominated at 11:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/TT8; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Merytat3n: Fantastic article! But I'm concerned that the hook isn't as brilliant. A bit of ambiguity draws readers but too much of it tends to backfire -- I honestly had no idea what I was getting until I clicked on the link. Any ALT suggestions? How about some pics to use? BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Thanks and yeah, I've been struggling to think of a really good one. So far down the TT8 hole I have a warped version of what is interesting haha. How about using the image of Merit's wig with the hook

• ALT1 ... that Merit's wig (pictured), discovered in the tomb TT8, still shined with perfumed oils at the time of its discovery?

Source: Schiaparelli (2008) [1927] The Intact Tomb of the Architect Kha in the Necropolis at Thebes p.33 Merytat3n (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the hook a bit. Are you happy with it? BorgQueen (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Merytat3n: ping. BorgQueen (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Yes that's perfect thank you so much for your help!! Merytat3n (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• This will need a full review by someone else. BorgQueen (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• GA, great article. Both hooks check out (AGF on ALT 1), but ALT 1 is hookier. Working a date or age into both hooks would improve them, but GTG. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Merit's wig

Also, cropping the pic would increase the chance of it being used. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Like this. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod, BorgQueen, and Merytat3n: I enjoy the cropped image and the ALT1 hook. I am also able to confirm the hook with this source. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"reminiscent of female genitalia"

in the food and drink section of what was in the tomb, it describes pieces of bread that was "reminiscent of female genitalia". can this description be more specific? female genitalia is a rather vague term and if it's meant to mean "oh it looks like a vulva" we should probably just say it looks like a vulva. idk. just a minor gripe 109.76.95.85 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I will quote Forbes, who mentions these types of bread specifically: "A group of these loaves have deep crevices running off center longitudinally, while several others are characterized by deep central crevices or holes (which may or may not have a sexual/fertility connotation)." (Forbes 1998:107) Forbes certainly seems to be implying the loaves look like a vulva (but not in as many words) but then goes on to say we can't know if the bread shapes are typical or if they are special funerary ones due to a lack of comparative material. Since Forbes is the only one to mention these loaves I will edit the sentence to make it more generic. Hopefully a publication on the bread will appear in the next couple of years and give their thoughts on the bread shapes. Merytat3n (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for 18 days. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

---

TT8 → Tomb of Kha and Merit – Proposing this page be moved for recognizability and naturalness as outlined in WP:CRITERIA even though it would break consistency with other TT numbers (and I do so love consistency!).

Reasoning:

• "Tomb of Kha and Merit" or something similar is often put before the TT number - eg: Schiaparelli's (1927) publication is "The Intact Tomb of the Architect Kha...", Forbes' (1998) publication is "Kha and Merit (TT8)", and Vassilika's (2010) is "The Tomb of Kha: The Architect". Museo Egizio's publication dedicated to the tomb is "La Tomba di Kha e Merit" (The Tomb of Kha and Merit), and their gallery is "Tomba di Kha" (Tomb of Kha). However, "Tomb of Kha and Merit" doesn't show up in this Google Ngram but the phrase "Kha and Merit" is essentially tied with "Tomb of Kha" in this Ngram

• This Google Ngram shows that "TT8" is more used than "Tomb of Kha" or "TT 8" but this is complicated by the fact that ""TT8" is also a gene (and a treadmill according to Google).

Let me know what you think! Merytat3n (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Frostly (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ancient Egypt has been notified of this discussion. Frostly (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plan and section views of the chapel

Currently the page has a plan view of the chapel's interior walls only. I would love to include a plan and section view of the chapel and its court, such as the one published by Bruyère (1925) Pl.XIV and adapted by Vandier d'Abbadie (1939) fig. 1. (Vandier d'Abbadie's line and colour facsimiles of TT8's damaged paintings would be welcomed also!) The publications are in French by French authors but were, as far as I am aware, first published in Egypt, which had no formal copyright law until 1954. Presumably this means they are in the public domain in Egypt and in the US and are available for use. Please let me know if I am wrong! I see User:Hypnôs has uploaded a few pyramidion images from one of Bruyère's works so presumably I am in good stead. ):T9 Merytat3n (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I am erring on the side of these are still in copyright so I will have to use something else, get creative, or wait : ) Merytat3n (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)