Talk:Funerary art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Funerary art has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 12, 2008.
April 30, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Archaeology (Rated GA-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. WikiProject Visual arts     (Rated GA-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA Class: This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 interesting 2 emotions/typical scenes 3 possible pics 4 Ancient v. Modern 5 African 6 collection of links for use 7 Br.Eng or Amer.Eng? 8 Coverage problems: GA on hold 8.1 Improved (?) Americas section 9 Coffin portraits 10 GA Review On Hold

[edit] interesting

This is interesting... but I'll leave to others to decide whether it should be included:

Yet the presence of such goods does not always reflect a belief in the aferlife. The Nankanse (a subgroup of the Gurunsi of northern Ghana and southern Burkina Faso do not bury artifacts with their dead, but artifacts are occasionally placed in graves because it is believed that the spirit of a living person has become trapped in the grave: "When this happens the favourite articles of the living person are placed... in the grave, for while they remain in the grave the person will not die." ^[1] The Yoruba do not typically place valuable items in a grave, but "... images of wood, brass, clay or ivory may be placed in a Yoruba grave simply because the dead person's heirs are not members of the same cults as he was and do not know how to handle them, or because they were used for sorcery and are therefore too dangerous to keep."^[2]

• Ucko, Peter J. (1969). Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Techniques of Chronology and Excavation) pp.262-280.

• Ling.Nut (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Worth having somewhere, but perhaps at burial. I'm becoming aware of a bit of an issue now I'm adding - how much do we need to distinguish between the in-life possessions added as grave goods - his favourite sword/jewels/saddle etc, and things just made for burial - strictly only the latter are "funerary art" but often the archaelogical & artistic interest in the former is at least as great. What has happened to the stars on our user pages, btw? They've gone super-nova. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My stars are OK. was it a glitch? And I was just kinda thinking the same thig.. the Ucko article has a paragaph I didn't quote above about "Burial amongst the Lugbara has little or nothing to do with the belief in an afterlife, and the tomb goods have no purpose connected with the afterworld; they are simply the visible expression of part of a person's social personality, the visible expression of his having left the living" Ling.Nut (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] emotions/typical scenes

...maybe something in the WP:LEAD about cross-cultural (?) emotions/typical scenes... to show the human reaction to death (or celebration of life) mentioned there... "...scenes of farewell, of mourning, of offerings at the tomb, of funeral toilette [though I would change that perhaps unfortunate word choice]. Occasionally, musical instruments are played either by or to the dead. Where there is a seated figure it is commonly, if not always, that of the dead." [Wright 1886, writing of lekythoi]. Draw ties with Etruscan and other examples.. amybe the Mimbres funerary bowls ... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly include it - I suspect that it's a tangled & complex subject & might eventually need its own section before the chronology starts. The first 2 chapters of the Toynbee book are on line btw - some pointers there, but all pretty complicated. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] possible pics

• Image:DSC04659 Istanbul - Sehzade camii - Cimitero - Foto G. Dall'Orto 29-5-2006.jpg turkish gravestones
• Image:Istanbul - Süleymaniye camii - Türbe - Foto G. Dall'Orto 26-5-2006.jpg Istanbul tomb er chapel
• Image:HalukOzozluWwwSihirliturComBursaArchaeologyMuseumSarcophagusTurkey roman provincial
• Image:Bursa_tombs.jpg

[edit] Ancient v. Modern

..whenever we move this article to mainspace, should it be renamed "Ancient funerary art"? Or should we include a section on more modern stuff? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a modern bit to the Christian section, & got the Islamic up to date. Its a pretty traditional area, so i would expect China, Africa & maybe the Americas could also be written right up to date. I think thats better than trying to summarize global contemporary fa in one section. I'm not sure how much can be called art these days anyway - precious little in the West, & I don't know if Hell banknotes count as art - maybe. The British Museum collects papier-mache cars & speed-boats made for burning at West African funerals - I'll try to did these up. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African

This is the skeleton (pun intended) of an African section:

• ... concern with social difference and cosmology<ref>Blier 2003, p. 155</ref> the universality of death <ref>Blier 2003, p. 156</ref> While deceased kings were said to take up residence with the gods, continuing their life of luxury and renewal, the spirits of lower-class persons were believed to remain on earth at the periphery of the village... [in] continual drudgery"<ref>Blier 2003, p. 155</ref> terracotta vessels abd statuary constitute a great part of the [[Akan]] funerary art.<ref>Blier 2003, p. 155</ref>

Ling.Nut (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Akan funerary pots and figures have been in use since at least the beginning of the seventeenth century. They are buried in "the place of the pots", which some source say is a grove separate from the cemetery, and some say is the cemetery itself.
• Three prehistoric cemetery sites in north-west [[Kenya]] (west of [[Lake Turkana]]), collectively referred to as [[Namoratunga]], contain large quantities of [[rock art]]. The sites were erected by [[East Cushitic languages|Eastern Cushitic]]-speaking [[Pastoralism|pastoralist]] peoples, and have been dated to about 300 B.C.<ref>Lynch and Robbins 1979, p. 323, 328.</ref> The art consists of "approximately 1,000 different engravings... representing 143 different geometric designs" <ref>Lynch and Robbins 1979, p. 321</ref>, and was located on basalt outcrops where the cemeteries were located, on a series of basalt pillars arranged near one of the cemetery sites, and on 38 of the graves themselves. Though the sites contain the remains of men, women and children, only the graves of men were decorated. The art of geometric designs were [[Livestock branding|livestock brand]]s that were passed from father to son, thus also serving as symbols for a particular [[Patrilineality|patrilineage]]...The [[Bakota]] of [[Gabon]] produced reliquary figurines. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Kingdoms of Madagascar: Malagasy Funerary Arts Ling.Nut (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest is Funerary sculpture of the Bongo and Belanda. Looking at this Encarta paragraph, it seems some other East Africans used similar post-shaped sculptures. Which would raise the question whether post-shaped sculptures were uncommon in the huge rest of Africa, and by what means the many non-East Africans marked their graves without erecting posts. Wikipeditor (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] collection of links for use

Monteleone Chariot Etruscan, Haniwa Japanese,Dargah sufi,King Ezana's Stele Ethiopian, Senegambian stone circles ,

[edit] Br.Eng or Amer.Eng?

I started out using SAE, of course, e.g. "center". Y'all can pick either one, but once that's done you'll have to make sure the usage is consistent. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, it should be US, but one slips - correct any you see. Of course, Coeil's spelling matches that of no known national group ;) Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oi, I heard that! Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage problems: GA on hold

I am not convinced that the article covers all major aspects of the topic. The americas paragraph is woefully short, and does not mention the most well known examples of indigenous american funeral art such as the Burial Slab of Pacal II, the construction of pyramids as tombs, the Inca practice of mummification of rulers, the postclassic Mesoamerican practice of the Skull Rack which is often depicted in art. Australia, Non-Egypt Africa and Non-China Asia aren't mentioned at all. I think that maybe the article has made a wrong choice about how to achieve coverage: instead of focusing on geographical regions at the risk of failing to get a broad coverage maybe it should focus on different kinds of funerary art, in respect to their functions? I am putting the article on hold until at least this has been discussed. Maybe there are some good reasons for having made the choice of an incomplete geographical presentation? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, long time no chat! I appreciate your review & comments. I guess I was kinda operating on the premise that this article, while clearly failing WP:WIAFA requirement (1b) that it be "comprehensive", might perhaps sufficiently fulfill the less stringent requirement of WP:WIAGA (3a and 3b) that it be "broad" (see the related footnote number 3 on WP:WIAGA). That's a bit of a judgment call... and if it is your judgment that the article does not meet the latter standards, then I respect your judgment. Note that we are definitely planning to write an "Africa" section in the coming weeks (see notes in threads above). I also deeply appreciate your suggestions re the Americas! I dunno if Johnbod or Ceoil have further thoughts... Ling.Nut (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Long time indeed - did you finish your PhD already? You may be right that the GA criteria of coverage are sufficiently weak for this not to be a problem. The main issue I have is with the choice of the geographical representation which seems to not necessarily give the best overview of the topic. But I suppose that is not enough to keep it from GA - however I suggest iffurther improvement drive is desired that more thought be given to the structuring of information in the article. Is it OK with you if I keep it on hold a week or so to give you time to improve the coverage and maybe add that Africa section?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other issues include the lack of references in the lead, terminology and prehistory sections. Also I think that a section defining the functions (social, religious and practical) of funerary art would be a welcome addition - the lead mentions it but the article doesn't seem to expand on this topic. I know that the lead doesn't need many references but they don't hurt either.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Any article on such a broad topic is inevitably going to be very summary, and the important thing in my view is to have links to good articles that fill out the suibject. Of course an appproach by function & so on could have been adopted, but I think this approach is equally valid; both have inevitable problems. Discussion of the function of art across different cultures I think needs much more careful and subtle analysis than is at all possible in an article of WP length, even if we had the knowledge or sources, which we do not. Africa needs adding, as said, but it is perhaps (with other traditional societies in Oceana etc) the hardest to generalize about, and the area with the fewest good articles to link to (that I could find anyway) - all suggestions welcome. Several non-Chinese Asian cultures are in fact mentioned, as is the striking lack of Hindu funerary art. "the Inca practice of mummification of rulers, the postclassic Mesoamerican practice of the Skull Rack which is often depicted in art" are more burial customs than funerary art, strictly, though I will add the skullrack, and other PreCo mummification is mentioned. Is there a good article on Maya slabs, or a specific burial? I tried & failed to find one. The same with Buddhist funerary art. Several other cultures, notably the Asian nomadic Scythians etc, have elaborate burials, but it is not clear that the objects deposited are other than the possessions in life of the deceased, which I was trying to avoid, as strictly it falls outside the subject (unlike models of the same). Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The best example of precolumbian funerary art is the Pacal slab at Palenque we don't have an article on that specifically yet.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Or detailed ones on any example that I could see. I may link to the Palenque section, but none of the photos seem to be of the tomb. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improved (?) Americas section

Per your old request, Ling Nut, I just now added some material on Mesoamerica, with appropriate footnotes etc, including mention of the sarcophagus of Pacal II. I would also love to add another image or two and will try to revisit this later. Madman (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is better, although we've lost the skull-racks & stepped pyramids from above! Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a paragraph on Maya tombs is needed. Let me try to put something together. I have a difficult time, though, folks, classifying skull racks as a funerary art since their purpose was sacrificial etc. Madman (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What about some of the decorated skulls, the practice of putting flint knives in skulls noses holes, funerary bundles etc. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the on hold notice, I think the article is about ready to be promoted. My concerns have either been adressed or my questions answered. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It still shows as on hold on the GAC page. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coffin portraits

Should they be mentioned? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are! Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review On Hold

Hey there, I'm here to review your article for GA. First: this is a well-written article, congratulations to all of the researchers and writers. In my opinion, it is just the right length for the subject and does not delve into too-much detail. Overall, a good job has been done. I am placing the article on hold as the issues I am going to raise below are all minor and shouldn't take more than 7 days to address.

Also, this article gets bonus points for mentioning menhirs which makes me think of Obelix!

First, the boring checklist:

1. Wellwritten: Prose is scintillating without going into over-detail. Good job.
   1. MOS: Y Close. I did a bit of minor copyediting, but more needs to be done, really just a once-over with an eye for flow and style. Otherwise, a great job.
2. Factually Accurate: As fas as I can tell, you're good here!
   1. Citations: Y Generally good, although more are required. Some of the claims require an inline citation, for example: "Humanity's oldest known archaeological constructions are tombs." (I put {{fact}} tags on the claims I believe would benefit from a citation.

Many of these are things fully covered in the articles on the subject just mentioned. In a survey article like this, I don't believe it is possible or necessary to reference everything that is covered in more detailed articles. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just 1 left (Pre-Columbian). Maunaus? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See below - more research confirmed this was correct as a generalization, but I could not find a source directly saying so for the whole continent; if anyone knows one, please add. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, because you're right, I may have been too strict for FA. I re-read the GA guidelines and as long as the main claims are cited, it's fine. My personal pref is for more cites, but, helas, those aren't the guidelines.... Lazulilasher (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Broad in CoverageY I notice that Islam and Christianity are mentioned. However, I see no note of Judaism burial practices. Perhaps I missed it, but I think Judaism should be mentioned.

The article is not about burial practices, but funerary art, not really a Jewish speciality. Since many other religious groups are covered, I think demanding coverage of Jewish art smacks of WP:UNDUE, and is not really taking a worldwide view. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I was only curious and it seemed reasonable to me. I had no idea that it wasn't a Jewish specialty. Thanks for clarifying. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Stable Yep.
2. Images:Y Ok, I don't think I would fail it for this, but generally, it is recommended to have about 1 image per section, so I think you could do a bit of pruning, if you'd like. Also, this doesn't have a license tag...

As a print from the 18th century, it is PD-Old. This is an art article, so pictures are more than usually necessary. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It it is tagged now (maybe it was yesterday and I didn't notice?). As I said, I've always heard the 1 image/section recommendation-but it is not a guideline--so, if you, the writers, see fit to have more that's OK Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the tag - should have mentioned it. Even at FA, art articles usually have as many images as will fit. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall: On hold All comments above are minor, generally this article is very good. Passed. Issues were either attended to or discussed. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Again, this is great work. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page (I'm watching this page, so it's no concern!). Lazulilasher (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's germane to 'Good Article' criteria, but I think that this article, and most "survey" articles like this, lack cohesion. That is, they are essentially descriptive lists -- there is no framework or theme or progression within the article. After a short introduction, the article describes culture after culture in isolated sections. Even within these culture sections, the prose can seem list-like.

I realize that Original Research is a no-no, but we could certainly compare how different cultures approached funerary art, etc. My 2¢, Madman (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The difficulties with doing that in an article this size are discussed above. Really you need much more space (and knowledge), or cross-cultural comparisons are just misleading. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, researching to try & fill the last fact tag (unsuccessfully) reminded me how reluctant professional academics are to make such broad comparisons, even across just the range of Pre-Columbian art, let alone globally. It might be different for burial customs, an anthropological field, but for art I believe it would be really difficult to reference a cross-cultural approach. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was fairly cohesive. I approached this subject with no knowledge or background and I do feel that I learned something and that it was an interesting read. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm scrambling to find cites for the various {{fact}} tags, but after some reflection I've decided to simply remove one, after: "Like mourning clothes these fall outside a strict definition of art." the reason I rmvd it is because.. I think it would be difficult if not impossible to find a cite that says something isn't a kind of something else, for example "An apple is not a vegetable." Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; plus this isn't fashion, just clothing. The other one was coats of arms, which are standardized designs kept simple for copying by craftsmen and signwriters. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. True, the GA criteria doesn't require the article to be lock-tight referenced and the criteria are meant to be interpreted in different manners. I tend to prefer to see more inline citations, but the the article does have an extensive bibliography and IS generally well-sourced, so I think we're fine -- although the "oldest known archaeological constructions are tombs" should probably be referenced (although, the claim does seems reasonable to me). Thanks for the copyediting. Anyway, the edits look good and as I said in the review, the article IS well-done. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt & fair review & responses! Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)