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

Tomb of Kha and Merit

Tomb of Kha and Merit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 30 September 2024, 12:24 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Tomb of Kha and Merit/archive1

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• • "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

• Would suggest linking Register (art).

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

• "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)

• 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)

• "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)

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

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

• "leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?

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

• "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)

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)

Did you want to add anything, AJ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support nothing really worth quibbling about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments Support 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• A second read-through produces no significant concerns. The issues I raised have been addressed by the nominator. Happy to support promotion to FA status. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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).

Added to lead as "Theban Tomb 8 or TT8". It is not often spelled out, like the KV numbers used for the Valley of the Kings tombs. Just clarifying here that the linked "Theban tomb" in the infobox is a product of the "theban=yes" field of the Infobox Egyptian tomb template. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "during the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty" It would be helpful also to mention here that it was the early New Kingdom.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "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's a bit of a meh sentence anyway so I have tried to rework it to focus on the damage instead: "The decoration has been damaged over the millennia, deteriorating due to structural decay and human actions; the texts were defaced during the reign of Akhenaten, and scenes were later damaged by modern robbers." Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 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."

Done Merytat3n (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• "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?

Schiaparelli thought Kha was born in the early Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Thutmose I, and that he spent most of his career (and reached the peak of it) under Thutmose III. As evidence, Schiaparelli points to a box sealed with "Menkheperre", Thutmose III's throne name, and the absence of a royal gift from that king. He thought one definitely existed but there is no evidence for it because it was too precious to be included in the burial. This would put Kha in his mid-80s by the time of his death, which Schiaparelli placed in the early part of Amenhotep III's reign. This, of course, doesn't mesh with examination of Kha's mummy, which estimates he died in his 60s.

To be honest the entire two sentences are kind of null information, Schiaparelli is the only one who thinks he's active this early. All the other sources say Amenhotep II-Amenhotep III, and only a few mention the seals (as an aside), or Schiaparelli's opinion. I've turned it into a note but its not crucial and can easily be deleted.Merytat3n (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• "juvenilising art style" What art style? Can it be linked?

After Amenhotep III's first jubilee festival in year 30 of his reign, the official art style changed, depicting figures in a "juvenilising" style. Faces were depicted with child-like features, such as over-large almond-shaped eyes, small mouths, and short, slightly upturned noses. As far as wiki is concerned, I don't think there is a page I can link to. It is not mentioned on Amenhotep III's page or art of Ancient Egypt. Instead of explaining, I will just remove "juvenilising" to leave only "art style". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Heading 'Kha and Merit'. This heading is vague. Maybe "Kha's career and family'.

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• "after clearing two thirds of the valley". Presumably the whole valley was not covered - two thirds of the debris?

Tried to clarify as "after clearing debris along two thirds of the valley's length". Merytat3n (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Done to end of Contents. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical," They are not identical as you say below that they are different sizes, so you need to specify in what respect. Shape? Decoration?

Specified. "The two sarcophagi are nearly identical in form, both being shaped like..." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Given their large size, they were brought into the tomb in sections and reassembled". "Given is an odd word here. Maybe "Due to their large size".

Done. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Below the collar and hands, a vulture goddess (identified as Nekhbet[139] or Nut[140]) spreads her wings over the torso above horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." This is ungrammatical.

Separated into two sentences. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Horizontal and vertical bands of text imitate the fabric bindings seen on mummy wrappings." "imitate" is a strange word here. Do you mean that the same text is on many mummy wrappings? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe "simulate" or "emulate" would be better. I'll try to explain. On mummies, the shroud is often secured by vertical bands of fabric running vertically down the centre of the body from head to foot (and along the sides of the body), and horizontal bands going across the body at the level of the chest, elbows, hips, knees and ankles. The coffin is shaped like a wrapped mummy and its decoration mimics its appearance, including the bands. On coffins, the bands are often filled with texts but on mummies themselves, they are most often plain (unless you are Tutankhamun and have gold bands with inlaid texts atop of the functional fabric ones). Merytat3n (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• I think you need to spell this out for clarity. E.g. "As with many other burials, the coffin has horizontal and vertical bands similar to the fabric bindings on mummy wrappings, but with text whereas mummy wrappings are usually plain." This is a bit clumsy and could probably be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How about something like "The coffin has vertical and horizontal bands of text whose positions, at centre front and sides, bicep, hip, knee and ankle, reference the plain fabric bindings on mummy wrappings." Merytat3n (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"reference" is not clear in this context. How about "are similar to those of". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, done :) Merytat3n (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Chemical analysis of textile samples from their mummies". This is unclear. Maybe "Chemical analysis of samples of textiles covering the mummies".

How about "Chemical analysis of samples of their mummy wrappings"? Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "The 2005 CT examination identified that Kha fractured his first lumbar vertebra, an injury which left it flattened.[165] 2014 X-ray analysis considers this injury to have occurred after his death." This is confusing and ungrammatical. Maybe "The 2005 CT examination showed that the first lumbar vertebra is fractured, leaving it flattened.[165] An X-ray analysis in 2014 suggested that the damage occurred after his death."

Done! Merytat3n (talk)

• Who is Susanne Binder? You need to say. Ditto Susanne Töpfer and Dennis C. Forbes and Dimitri Laboury.

Specified. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Merit's coffin, intended for Kha, is much too large for her". You have said this above.

Removed. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• pectoral - what is this? You should wikilink.

Clarified as "pectoral necklace" and wikilinked pectoral. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "This item is not without parallel as there are occasional examples from other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs. However, given the number of similar wooden statuettes known, this practice was likely much more common." You appear to say in the first sentence that they are rare, and in the second that they are common.

They are rarely found in context but many are known, they just have no provenance. Hopefully clarified as "There are occasional examples of such figures found in other contemporary non-noble Theban tombs; their inclusion may have been more common than these finds suggest, as many unprovenanced statuettes are known from museum collections." Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Following the discovery, Gaston Maspero, director of the Antiquities Service". Presumably of the Egyptian service, but you should say so.

Stated. Merytat3n (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image seem to be well-placed. I wonder if the hieroglyphs can be sourced somehow. File:TT8 Plan.jpg needs a translation somewhere; is it explained in-text? File:TT8 Chapel exterior C02053.jpg, File:TT8 chapel interior.jpg, File:Forms of bread from TT8.jpg, File:TT8 burial chamber 01.jpg can probably be licenced as PD-1923 as well. File:Upper wall and ceiling motif MET 30.4.3.jpg, File:Funerary stela of Kha.jpg should give a licence (PD-old) for the motif too, and I am not sure I see the licence on the source page ... the metmuseum seems to be inconsistent in that regard. A fair many images have naked URLs on the file page, which makes it difficult to repair them if they break. File:Ay receiving the Gold of Honor.jpg also ought to have a licence for the motif (PD-old). Source-wise: Some ISBNs are with hyphens and others without; likewise, retrieval dates and accessibility icons are inconsistently applied. "Backdirt: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology" is not, to my knowledge, the name of the journal. Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and suitable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the source review. The nomination also needs a first timer's source to text spot check and a plagiarism review; do you fancy obliging? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The little [1] immediately below the hieroglyphs is the source for them but it is hard to see. I have moved it to the text at the bottom of the hiero box where is displays as "Kha and Merit[1] in hieroglyphs".

TT8 plan now translated in caption. I've also added what the numbers refer to (wall scenes).

PD-old licenses added to the images.

Adding hyphens to ISBNs that didn't have them and checked all ISBNs valid.

Removed all urls that weren't free access or free registration and added access dates to the ones that didn't have them.

Fixed journal name.

Thanks! Merytat3n (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

Of this version: * 5 OK, wonder if we should source the "New Kingdom" bit too. Also pretty sure that Deir el-Medina isn't the contemporary name.

If we do source that the Eighteenth Dynasty is part of the New Kingdom, would Rice 1999 p. xivii, where he says Eighteenth D. is part of the New Kingdom, or p.I, where he lists the dynasties and their larger periods, be ok?

The contemporary name for Deir el-Medina was simply "The Village" (pA dmi) (citing UCLA Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt). (Wiki's Deir el-Medina page currently cites Lesko (1994) p.7 who says the ancient name was "the Place of Truth", but on p.119 that its inhabitants always called it "The Village"). I can change it to "the workmen's village known today as Deir el-Medina". Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd do that rename. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 15 While this supports that Iuy is the father's name, I have to wonder if #14 explicitly says that nothing is known otherwise. A source not discussing a topic doesn't mean that said topic wasn't covered anywhere.

[15] (Russo 2012 p.67) says: "The name of Kha's father, Awy, is quoted four times on the papyrus with chapters of the Book of the Dead (Suppl. no. 8438 Fondazione Museo Antichità Egizie, Turin), with three different spellings. Nothing else is known about his title and position in the central administration and at Deir el-Medina."

This is also supported by Vassilika (2010 p.76) who says: "Schiaparelli noted the rare mention of Kha's father Aui (4 times), the absence of his mother, and deduced that Kha was a man of modest background, without inherited titles, who was perhaps self made." Biannuci et al (2015) say the same thing. In La Tomba di Kha e Merit (2018 pp. 85-86), Ferraris devotes only one line to Kha's father, saying the only other thing we know about Iuy - that he was dead when Kha's papyrus was written: "Il papiro è inoltre l’unica fonte a restituire il nome del padre di Kha, Auy/Iuy, che è indicato con il solo titolo di “giusto di voce”, intendendo che questi è già deceduto al momento della redazione del Libro dei Morti." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 21 It says that Schiaparelli assumed Kha was a centenarian, not in his 80es.

Fixed Merytat3n (talk)

• 23 OK
• 42 OK
• 43 Where does it say chapel?

I'm assuming I confused Meskell saying "However, in the Eighteenth Dynasty only a handful of tombs at Deir el Medina appear to have substantive superstructures [chapels]" for saying TT8 was one of a few surviving Eighteenth Dynasty chapels. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 54 OK
• 56 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, it is short enough that I can also quote it here. Russo 2012 p.22: "It has yet to be established with certainty when Kha's chapel was decorated. The stylistic study undertaken by Cherpion of TT 340 and TT 354 suggests similarities between TT 354 (anonymous) and TT 8. In her view, some parts of TT 8 were decorated at the end of Thutmosis IV's reign, while others were completed early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Kozloff supposed that the decoration of Kha's chapel was most likely completed after the burial chambers of Nakht (TT 52), Menna (TT 69) and TT 226, probably in the second half of Amenhotep III's reign." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 64 Can I have a copy of this page?

  Got it, but I am not sure what this supports. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is basically an extra (English language) source for the back wall decoration, especially the jackals, bouquet, and priest in leopard skin offering to Neferhebef and Taiunes as Porter & Moss are very brief, and I'm machine translating Vandier d'Abbadie. The other English sources I have used don't mention it much as they are focused more on the tomb - Sousa (2019) only mentions the decoration very briefly, Forbes (1998) only shows photos of the decoration, and Vassilika (2010) doesn't mention the decoration at all. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 68 Where is the grave robbing and stele removal mentioned?

Oh sorry, stele removal is actually mentioned on p.4. Robbery is describing the removal of the stele but may be too strong a word. Happy to delete that sentence and just leave the "The back wall was damaged..." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to replace it, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Done : ) Merytat3n (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 79 Supports some of the content, but can I have a copy of #78?

Sure. Looking at the source, I see it is only pp.16-17, not pp.15-17. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I must ask if #90 supports the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1. 90 Sousa 2019 pp.63, 89. Dunno why I'm citing p.63, which is talking about the form of the chapel, removed. But relevant part of p.89: "This circumstance became a most fortunate one, as a rock landslide eventually covered and sealed the burial shaft in antiquity, protecting it from tomb robbers until it was discovered in 1906." (Before this sentence, Sousa suggests Kha originally built his chapel where the tomb is situated and later rebuilt it in its current location. No other source that I have read suggests this so I haven't gone into it.) Merytat3n (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 95 I was about to ask for a copy of this page, but it seems like #74 alone supports everything or am I missing anything?

It mostly does, and [94] and [95] say very similar things. I just wanted to have more than one source for a statement like that seeing as, when I checked #74's source (Smith 1992), I couldn't find it saying anything that specific about TT8. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• 105 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure (2 pages). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Where is "He worked on the western bank of Thebes, presumably the Deir el-Medina area, and the gift was in recognition of Kha's high status at the height of his career"? Also, it seems like there is disagreement about which Sitamun the finding refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Russo (2012) p.47, last sentence of third paragraph from the bottom and first sentence of second paragraph from the bottom: "It seems likely that Userhat practiced his priestly duties at Deir el-Medina or in the Ramesseum area. Userhat was a contemporary of Kha and presented him with the tribute as an acknowledgement of his importance, most likely when Kha was was at the top of his career."

With regards to Sitamun, although Russo goes on, on page 47, to discuss all the opinions by various scholars of which Sitamun it might be, I have followed Russo in what they say first, on p.46: "The most probable is that Sitamun was one of Ahmose's daughters, and a sister of Amenhotep I, known from other sources." Merytat3n (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably should qualify it in the article, if even Russo doesn't say "The only candidate is this Sitamun" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've couched it as "in this case most likely referring to the daughter of Ahmose I". Merytat3n (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• 114 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #115 too.

Sure (2 pages each). Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OK.

• 117 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #116 too.

Sure, these are both multiple pages. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't mention inlay nor that multicoloured glass was rare. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

117 (Vassilika 2010) p.45, 48: "The front [continued on p.48] panel is decorated with black and white rectangles within a diamond patterned border imitating bone and ebony intarsia [inlay] work." (last 2 words on p.45 and first sentence of p.48)

P.50, top of the page: "...an alabastron, is actually of blue glass, which was a relatively new and rare material." The next sentence, which is about the kohl tube, and mentions both glass vessels are multicoloured ("also of blue glass and likewise with a zig-zagged yellow and white trailed decoration".) Merytat3n (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• 119 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #51 too.

Sure. I can quote #51 in full here too (Vassilika 2010 p.10): "Given Kha's station as Director of the Royal Works, and given the amount of furniture in his tomb that was derived from life, it is unlikely that he had a permanent abode in the village of little houses at Deir el-Medina, where the tomb builders lived (perhaps only during specific projects in this period) at the expense of the royal purse, but that he lodged there only when he was working."

Relevant parts of #119 (Russo 2012 p.65): "At the present stage it is not possible to establish if Kha lived in one of the small residences in the settlement. The fact that he was buried in the western necropolis implies a strong link with the community area nearby... It is intriguing to consider the possibility that Kha had a residence outside the settlement." Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't discuss the function of furniture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Because, in note G, [119] and [51] are primarily sourcing of the discussion of if Kha and Merit lived in the village full time or not. I assume by function you mean the types of furniture (stools, chair, beds, etc), which are all mentioned by [120] (Schiaparelli 2008 pp.37-40) and [121] (Forbes 1998 pp.88-92) at the bottom of the paragraph. Merytat3n (talk) Merytat3n (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 121 Can I have a copy of this page? Might need #120 too.

Sure, these are multiple pages each. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, while bunching references up like that improves readability, it kinda makes verifying them hard. In particular I can't find the papyrus and senet thing. It doesn't say that the bed was outside the tomb for space reasons or that the sons gave offerings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, shall I return to my instincts and cite everything in this section (and food and drink) individually? (Take that uni lecturer who told me a decade ago that I used too many citations and listed every single one they thought was unnecessary XD)

Looks like "papyrus" is a mistake on my part - Forbes (1998) p.90 says they are made of rushwork and one has a papyrus tray. Schiaparelli says they are made of cane, as does Vassilika. Slatted table holding senet (game) board is Forbes (1998) p. 90, end of the third paragraph: "When found it was holding a game board (described below), which may have been its practical use, in any case." Bed outside tomb for space reasons is another mistake on my part, Forbes (1998) mentions it on p.144. Schiaparelli (2008) p.40, right column, about halfway down, mentions the depictions of the sons (well, children really but most often the son(s), Merit only appears once) giving offerings: "in one of the scenes, a daughter presents a libation jar and a son offers a flower, while only the son appears in the other two scenes, again in the act of offering a lotus". Merytat3n (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• 137 OK
• 170 It says the custom of earrings began around his time, not that he was one of the first Egyptian men to wear them.

He is one of the earliest known examples though, which is what the source says: "Kha is one of the earliest known examples of an Egyptian man wearing large ear-rings [35,42]." The earliest known depiction of ancient Egyptian men wearing earrings is from the tomb of Tekty, TT15, from the very start of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The next is Sennefer (TT96), who is approx contemporary with Kha. (Eaton-Krauss, M. (1998). Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 84(1), 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/030751339808400118)

• 177 Can I have a copy of this page?

Sure, I will also quote the relevant sentence here (Forbes 1998 p.75): "Despite all of this padding, the body sloped to its left, no doubt having shifted somewhat during transport to (or from) the tomb".

To be honest, I have been thinking about removing this line or altering it, even though 3 sources mention it. Schiaparelli says this about her position (p.22): "After raising the lid, Merit's mummy appeared like a vision, her head and part of the chest covered with a fine gilded mask and the head and body leaning slightly to the left, in the arms of the Goddess Nut, painted on the inside of the box". Vassilika says (p.38) "According to Schiaparelli, Merit was found lying on her left side (although early pictures show her flat on her back) as if embraced by the goddess [Nut]." Fig. 30 of Schiaparelli's publication indeed shows her flat on her back in the centre of her coffin, but her mask has fallen to her left. Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of (full) pages requested here so I have interpreted your request for copies of pages literally and photographed them (badly), named them all with their footnote number and source publication, and put them in a Google Drive. I hope this is what you wanted. I can email the link if this suits? Merytat3n (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

'fraid that the Google Drive file is protected in some fashion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Should work now : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)