Talk:Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Citation

Citation would help. Given that all suggested evidences are circumstancial, I doubt any serious academic would make definitive conclusion to this matter. Vapour

A large majority of the sources in this are questionable, outdated or no longer accessible in any form. Perhaps the citations should be revamped to better substantiate claims.

Removing noncompliant tag

I've added 2 citations and 4 good external links. The article still needs elaboration and expansion, but I don't have time for that now. Someone else can use the references I've posted to work up a fuller treatment of this topic. --Textorus 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversold

Even if gay, claiming they were the first 'gay' couple is way overselling this, even using the words 'recorded' history.68.211.77.10 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, um.. precedent? None? Then they're the first recorded gay couple in history.

The article is so poorly written. The reference given for the comment that N and K are the first recorded gay couple does not say that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.79 (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict?

With January 2010 edits, the article now kind of contradicts itself? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't necessarily contradict itself. In the opening line it says that the two were brothers, probably twins. A few lines later it says they were probably the first same-sex couple recorded in history. Technically, they could have been both. Still, I see what you mean. It is confusing. The line saying they were a couple links to a book published by a university press. The line claiming they were brothers links to a publisher I hadn't heard of before. When I searched for that publisher on Wikipedia, the first thing that came up was a book on Astrology & Fortune Telling. Based on that, I'm tempted to remove that first line as insufficiently supported, but I'd like to see what other people think first. Markwiki (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think ideally, unless claims about the relationship of the subjects come from Egyptologists who have actual experience researching them and who

have been interviewed by the major media sources about them, OR
have published material about them in major/reputable sources,

then they should probably be removed. The claim is attributed to Lorna Oakes, who appears to have some credentials as a scholar according to this page: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hafvm/staff/sessional/oakes Although other sources have been pretty clear in discussing the subjects, the claim attributed to her is mentioned in an almost offhand way, and what exactly she may be claiming (or possibly contradicting) in regards to "K&N" seems kind of ambiguous. Does she refute the conclusion that they were a couple? Or is she "adding" that not only were they the first recorded gay couple, but also in her opinion the first recorded "twincestuous" relationship? Without the book, it's not possible to know exactly what she's said about the subject, if it's a correct attribution, or a mischaracterization, or what have you.Adrigon (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since things on Wiki are never a finished product, I think it would be fine to leave it as is, potentially adding a description to parse out the confusing aspects until more on the details of the Oaks source can be determined.Luminum (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Homosexuality in ancient Egypt be merged into this article or section.

NO - I think that the idea that these men were a gay couple has been around a while and warrants a mention in the article, but considering it is not proven and they do appear with their respective families, I think this should be a short mention. Not something written into the article as a main point or even a considerable part of the content. The tomb and the individuals is rather interesting and I would prefer this article to be about these two individuals and their tomb. --AnnekeBart (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a case somewhat similar to the Merneptah stele etc. -- if it weren't for the feature which is of special interest to moderns (in this case, the gay-couple thing), then the archaeological artifact would be of interest to professional scholars only, and quite unknown to the general public. Therefore it's difficult to write an article which does not give prominence to the feature which is of special interest to moderns... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:AnnekeBart (and User:AnonMoos). Such a merger would be an undue synthesis. Maybe they were a "gay-couple", but even if they were, they were prob foremost ancient Egyptian royal servants depicted in a tomb. Freddie Mercury wasn't mostly reknowned for being bisexual, he was rather mostly reknowned for being a singer and musician. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt should definietly be merged with this article. I wrote on the talk page over there about their status as identical twins, which may be why they are depicted as embracing in their tomb. The evidence of wives and children means that they probably weren't exclusively gay, if they were. Consider that the tomb paintings of daily life were meant to ensure the deceased would enjoy such a life in the afterlife. The tomb has enough information that we know them to be twins, not gay incestuous lovers.

The bottom line of this matter is that the evidence is too ambiguous to say with any certainty. Describing them as the first gay couple in AE:Homosexuality is an exaggeration, and without them the article has hardly any content. Merge it, and then edit it considerably. Edit: I changed my mind. Homosexuality should be deleted on the grounds that it's modern speculation about an ancient culture. Heilingetorix (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge: This proposal is not well thought out, and mixes apples and orange crates. It's like proposing to merge Homosexuality in ancient Greece with Harmodius and Aristogeiton. One is about a geographic area in a certain time; the other is about actual people who lived there.

And it's not just "speculation about an ancient culture" - there are a number of Eqyptian texts that make reference to homosexual behavior, but aren't yet included in the article.

Granted, both Egyptian articles are a bit thin at the moment, and K&N may have been just twins, but as time goes on interested and knowledgeable editors can always add more to each one. That's what an open enyclopedia is for, right? But merging them would just be silly, don't go there. Textorus (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should such evidence suggest it should be in Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt. The only reason the merge is being suggested is because K&N are the only example of homosexuality in ancient egypt that's in that article. Let me see if I can find something. Edit: I found something.Heilingetorix (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both links work. Minnesota State U. E-museum is closed, now on Wayback machine; Archaeology at Humboldt-Berlin still retrieves Kammerzell chapter from Texte und Denkmaeler.Jessegalebaker (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan. 2017 edits to this article by user Jessegalebaker

For academic integrity I must state that I have no special qualifications in Egyptology. My ability to read French and German, in which college-level skill is prerequisite for admission to any university Egyptology program, is limited as well. Difficult subject area where interpretation varies by scholar and consensus opinions are few.

editing program in chronological order

Corrected caption to wrestling image in section on the tomb. The Wikimedia photo with this article is a detail from Plate V in Percy Newberry, Beni Hasan Part II, Archaeological Survey of Egypt, F. Griffith Ed., 1893. Anachronistic in this article since Beni Hasan Khnumhoteps and Baqts were about 500 years later.
Corrected translations of tomb owners’ names, as supplied by Tour Egypt [Government of Egypt web site].
Conformed tomb plan to standard Porter & Moss nomenclature.
Added new subsection on offering scenes. Defensible; the jnw, bAkw, Htp-dj-nswt, and nDt-Hr category breakdown for offering formulas is widely used in the field.
Added section on titulary.
Added section on banquet scene..
Added section on career.
Added section on funeral procession. Currently, this ends the article; I won't expand it further.

major professional sources specific to this tomb

Ahmed Moussa & Hartwig Altenmüller (1977), Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, Darmstadt, Germany: Philipp von Zabern. This is the generally accepted publication of the tomb. ISBN 978-3-8053-0050-6

Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae carries many of the Moussa & Altenmüller text transliterations and translations online.

other sources

Osirisnet [web site], by John Hirst & Thierry Benderitter, is a lovely compilation of tombs, but not citable because it does not cite its own sources, nor is there reason to believe its creators are Egyptologists. Included for picture credits.

Thomas Dowson (2007), "Archaeologists, Feminists, and Queers: Sexual Politics in the Construction of the Past," pp. 89-102 in Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, Pamela Geller, Miranda Stockett (Eds.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press ISBN 978-0-81-222005-6 Quote: "Greg Reeder, an independent gay writer (i.e. not a normatively trained archaeologist) has shown that the same canon was used to represent these two men as was...used to represent husband and wife at the same time" (p. 97). Nonetheless published by Francis & Taylor.

Tried to clean up the citations and substitute better sources where possible. So far, the article relies too much on publications about Giza and Abusir, which can be relevant, but should be supplemented with Saqqara material on people buried nearby, especially potential colleagues of the tomb owners. Jessegalebaker (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article ready for review; Copyright/Original research issues

Copyright affects most of the images on this page: I uploaded and used eight images under a fair use claim. This might be incorrect; fair use is harder to defend for images than for text quotes. The images below are used only here and can be deleted without side effects.

Four images below are on the Commons since ca. 2008 by another editor, with claim of free license from Jon Bodsworth. Yet be aware museums license private or classroom use, rarely republication. Neither Bodsworth nor the images are accessible at the website given for them. If these items are deleted from Wikimedia or required to show license/fair use; it will affect multiple articles in English and foreign-language Wikipedia. I do not know procedures for image usage review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mastaba_of_Niankhkhum_and_Khnumhotep_entrance.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mastaba_of_Niankhkhum_and_Khnumhotep.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mastaba_of_Niankhkhum_and_Khnumhotep_scene_1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mastaba_of_Niankhkhum_and_Khnumhotep_embrace_2.jpg

Remaining two images are my own work but might constitute original research because hieroglyphs occur. These images can stay on the Commons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Niankhkhnum_%26_Khnumhotep_embracing_at_false_doors_in_their_tomb._(reconstruction_drawing,_svg_format).svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manicurist.png

Article will require editing if images are removed. It is long enough to consider cuts. Please read for flow before making cuts; the sections aren't fully independent of one another. I have been improving the image use rationales on the eight copyright images I uploaded. The main problem is that the immediate sources have usually licensed the image from somewhere else. I have traced original publication of all items except #6 and annotated the file pages. Jessegalebaker (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming some excess

I'm going to try to trim some excess info. Additionally, there seem to be a lot of notes that were never referred to in the text so I will see what can be done with that Merytat3n (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]