Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tomb of Kha and Merit/archive1

Tomb of Kha and Merit

Featured article candidates/Tomb of Kha and Merit/archive1

Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.

I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:

The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
"Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
"further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
"the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
"kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.

I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

On first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

Kha and Merit

"but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.

Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.

1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.

Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.

Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.

It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel

Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.

I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if other reviewers bring it up.

"time of European interest in it, during" can be cut

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.

Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest linking Register (art).

Done Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb

This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).

So far I have only split up the large first paragraph in "Discovery and clearance". Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A TT8 Kha sírja Dejr-el-Medinében.jpeg is a very unhelpful picture+caption. First, are we to assume the yellow dot covers up the location of the tomb? Surely an arrow would be better?
Second, the latter part of the caption (viz. "visible diagonally to the left of the tomb, partially obscured by the hill") is just confusing. After around five minutes of searching, I think I can see a flat-topped structure, next to some terrace-like walls, on a bearing of 250° from the yellow dot—is that the chapel?
If so, note that readers will naturally see "obscured by hill" and assume you mean the big ones at the back of the photo, where I spent the first four minutes playing I spy. You could alleviate this problem by saying "closer to the camera" or something.

Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do this weekend : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't satisfied with my weekend attempts but it's not strictly necessary, just a nice to have. I can always keep trying : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the discoloured limestone fill was mixed with bone, pottery, and cloth" is this necessary information?

Nope. Removed.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth paragraph duplicates the contents of the ... "Contents" section below. Most of the middle bit could be removed.

Done.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"published the discovery" as in he published an account of the discovery,?

Fixed (and expanded this section a little). Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"of the discovery" is repeated twice within two phrases.

Reworded.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?

Unresolved, but I have resolved the wording : )Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A cubit rod ... may have been an award from [Amenhotep II]" this uncertainty is at odds with the "Kha and Merit" section, which shows no such lack of surety.

Source checked and surety established.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ganesha811

I think a note explaining the meaning of Ꜥ (from KhaꜤ) would be appropriate. In general, in the first section, a note at the first appearance of italicized transliterations linking to the system used or similar would be helpful.

I've addressed this in a roundabout way by adding translit for Kha and Merit's names, putting Kha's alt renderings in a note and adding the ayin link there. Let me know if this is ok. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kha presumably employed his own skilled workmen to execute the decoration - this is interesting and suggests that the chapel was completed or built during his life, which I don't think was mentioned before. Would that have been typical? I think a little more context would be valuable.

Yes, the chapel and tomb (and coffins, and other burial goods) were generally (ideally) completed during the owner's life. I will see if I can dig out anything from a more general source before I add context, but at the very least, Vassilika (2010 pp.8, 10) says that Kha started tomb prep during his life, and may have worked on the chapel and tomb with his own men, or perhaps his sons.Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added : ) Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rare example of an intact middle class burial from the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty - what does the term middle class mean in context here? A note might be helpful - is anyone non-royal and non-peasant middle class?

Great question. Tentatively yes. The sources seem a little unsure on how exactly to categorise Kha and Merit, and TT8. Vassilika (2010) calls the tomb "the best surviving furnished, non royal tomb" (p.7) and says Kha is middle class and it has been suggested he was the lowest level of the elite (p.10), which Russo also follows, suggesting he integrated into the elite administration at the end of his life (Russo 2012 pp. 63, 78). Based on his coffins, he had access to royal workshops (Vassilika, Russo, Forbes, and Kozloff). Forbes calls Kha "upper-middle class" (pp.107, 113) and "high-status" (p.132). In light of this, I can change "middle class" to "non-royal", which is perhaps the easiest and safest wording : ) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2017, the tomb's contents have been the subject of the "TT8 Project", a multidisciplinary and non-invasive study of all the objects, the full publication of which is planned for 2024 - has this study been published?

Not as far as I am aware : ( (unless it refers to the trickle of publications on various classes of objects that have come out over the last few years, in which case, perhaps.) Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

half-full of fat with the wick burning when the tomb was closed - how was this determined? Do the sources say?

I think they just assume it. Schiaparelli says that (pp.17, 45) "The lamp was still two thirds full of grease. The relatives had left it lit when they closed the tomb and it illuminated the chamber while the wick lasted; it had gone out when this burnt down." Figure 127 of The Intact Tomb of Kha shows the lamp, with its wick and fat or oil. His account has its known flaws so perhaps he was being overly romantic. Weigall, who was also there (and can also exaggerate), says something similar in his 1911 account: "...was a small copper dish, in which were the ashes of incense, and the little stick used for stirring them. One asked oneself in bewilderment whether the ashes here, seemingly not cold, had truly ceased to glow at a time when Rome and Greece were undreamt of, when Assyiria did not exist..." (p.180) Sousa (2019 p.61) also repeats Schiaparelli, saying "...the last visitor, who swept [the floor] before closing the door leaving behind a papyrus-column lamp-stand burning". Vassilika simply says (p.108) that the lamp was found with the half-burnt wick in place.

Tl;dr: the lamp still has oil/fat in it and a burnt wick suggesting that, at the very least, it was used prior to burial, and assume it was left burning inside the tomb. Happy to reword to follow Vassilika (2010) more and Schiaparelli less, and just say lamp had oil/fat and the wick was burnt. Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would make the most sense. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

others were made into various shapes such as triangles, jars or trussed animals, or have grooves or holes that may suggest fertility this is a little grammatically awkward, suggest splitting the sentence.

Done! Merytat3n (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one retrospective comment on Schiaparelli's handling of the discovery, but no detail about how it was received at publication in 1927 other than that it attracted attention. I see he died just the next year. How did this discovery fit into the context of what was known in the 1920s, and how was it viewed over time? The article describes that it was all given to the Museo Egizio, but doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that Schiaparelli was director of that museum, which seems relevant. Are there any modern discussions re: the split where a few items remained in Cairo?

I have added a 1928 review of Schiaparelli's publication and some more about his use of photography. (It is praised for the many images but generally is not up to the standard expected for Egyptological publications of the 1920s.) I have added that Schiaparelli was director in a couple of places. There don't seem to be many modern discussions of the split but I have tried to expand on what is there - general speculation about the type of tomb, the other recent finds, space in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, etc. Merytat3n (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very interesting and generally well put-together article. I may have a few further comments on a second reading but nothing too dramatic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

You mention in the infobox that it is a Theban Tomb, but not in the lead. This should be in the lead and the explanation of "TT" (not just a link).
"during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty" It would be helpful also to mention here that it was the early New Kingdom.
"The texts of the chapel were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten and later restored, indicating it was one of the oldest chapels in the village cemetery." Why indication one of the oldest? This needs explanation.
It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival and the exhibition has been reworked several times, most recently in 2015, where an entire gallery is dedicated to the tomb of Kha and Merit." This wording is confusing. Maybe "It has been displayed in the Museo Egizio in Turin since its arrival, and an entire gallery is devoted to it. This has been been redesigned several times."
"Given Kha's estimated age at death, it is unlikely that he was a mature professional over 50 years earlier during the rule of Thutmose III." This is unclear. What was his age at death (not stated in the main text at this point) and why would he have had to have been a mature professional, not just a young man, in Thutmose III's reign?
"juvenilising art style" What art style? Can it be linked?
Heading 'Kha and Merit'. This heading is vague. Maybe "Kha's career and family'.
"after clearing two thirds of the valley". Presumably the whole valley was not covered - two thirds of the debris?
Done to end of Contents. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]