Talk:Funerary art

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." 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."

• 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)

References

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)

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

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)

The "modern bit" is still very small for a Featured Article. This article is mainly about art in ancient and medieval times, and almost nothing about the last two centuries. I am unsure what should be done, but at least there should be more links to other articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a passage in one of the refs commenting on the "precipitous decline" (or similar) of private memorial art in the last century or so, which I will add if I ever find it again. The fact is even the rich just have pretty plain gravestones these days, or get cremated. Will there be anything to say here about the tombs/burials of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Gates' kitchen is probably more interesting than his gravestone will be. Look at recent US Presidential graves. What major artists have produced funerary art, other than the public collective memorials which are covered, in the last century or so? This is essentially an art history article, & while obviously there is a subject in modern styles in gravestone design etc, I think it really falls off the radar on a worldwide, all-time survey like this. I thought of mentioning the huge popularity of mini Celtic crosses, & may add that. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Funerary art (especially 19th and early 20th century) is quite abundant at Laurel Hill Cemetery in Philadelphia, and elsewhere, too. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The big Italian monumental cemeteries which are agreed to have led the world in this style are given quite generous coverage. Of course everybody has a local cemetery. Even there major artists rarely participated after about 1900, in strong contrast to earlier periods. I suppose something should be added about the "freezing" of much popular taste in memorials in the style of the late 19th century, but I haven't come across a ref. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

collection of links for use

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Featured article???

The suggestion has been made to raise this article to Featured Article status.

I'd be happy to upgrade this article, although my contribution to it has been rather narrow. What I think this article needs most, as I mentioned during the GA discussion above, is something that ties the article together. This could take the shape of a comparison section, or some sort of thread/structure/commonality within/between the 10 sections.

Right now, it's more like 10 mini-articles. Madman (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a broad article covering a wide number of different cultural treatment of the subject accross georgaphy and time. And so it written in summary style. Another approcah would be reductive; I don't see a problem. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember that at some point in this article's history it had something like what Madman suggests.. or maybe that was just in working drafts, I don't recall... No matter what happens, it needs an Africa section. That is guaranteed. And something like what madman suggests would also be beneficial, IMHO. But... I dunno whether or not the latter would be necessary. It is clearly something to consider. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs an African & maybe Oceanan etc section, lots more referencing, & some anthropological generalizing. I think comparisons etc would be too complicated & hard to source, though some fundamental contrasts & commonalities are already there and could perhaps be brought out more. Now it is more art history than anthropology, and though it could be written the other way, it should stay that way. It is open to criticism for too much on art for the rich & powerful. We could try a peer review I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone at PR bring any relevant knowledge/experience to the table? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well on commas, m-dashes etc. That Chinese stele is up for deletion btw. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Christian sarcophagi

I recommend that whoever read Hall, James. A History of Ideas and Images in Italian Art may have missed something. Currently the article claims

The Catacombs of Rome contain most of the Christian art of the Early Christian period, mainly in the form of frescos and sculpture. This shows a Christian iconography emerging, initially from Roman popular decorative art, but later borrowing from official Imperial and pagan motifs. For several centuries, Christians avoided portraits of the deceased and sarcophagi were decorated with ornament, Christian symbols like the Chi Rho monogram and, later, religious scenes"

The earliest Christian sarcophagi emerge around the middle of the 3rd century (at least, those are the earliest identified). A chronology of the changing design is hard to build because they do not often have inscriptions with dates. In most cases, a relative dating has to be used. As such, that "For several centuries, Christians avoided portraits of the deceased and sarcophagi were decorated with ornament" is a little misleading. This example is thought to be from the 4th century. Setting aside the problems with creating a with anything more than broad generalisations, from the mid-3rd century to the 4th is not "centuries" and it's pretty clear there are portaits and religious scenes present. I think that religious scenes were present fairly early on, just not always explicitly Christian (ie: Old Testament rather than New Testament). Also, pagan motifs were the popular decorative art for sarcophagi. Scenes involving bacchus or treading grapes were very popular in both pagan and early Christian sarcophagi. The article could do with stating when the earliest Christian sarcophagi emerged. I'd recommend reading at Robert Milburn's Early Christian Art and Architecture (1988) which has a good discussion of Christian sarcophagi and their decoration (even late on supposedly Christian sarcophagi incorporated explicitly pagan imagery). The book also contains information on the catacombs. I'd do something about this myself, however I do not have access to the book. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This was really talking about catacomb frescos, found from the end of the 2nd century, rather than sarcophagi, but needed clarifying. I've done this Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A few bits

Necropolis of Kerkouane: A few examples of Punic funerary art have been uncovered at the only surviving remains of a Punic town.

You might mention the Aztecs and Nazca in passing in the Americas section. Fired clay funerary urns containing cremated human bones have been discovered at the Templo Mayor (one of which features an image of Tezcatlipoca which suggests the bones may be of a warrior or person of rank). A stone casket, now in the National Anthropological Museum in Mexico City possibly contained the remains of Moctezuma II - it is decorated with his name glyph.

The Nazca often buried grave goods of ceramics and textiles with the dead and some bodies have been unearthed with a "pot head", a jar with human features painted on it, rather than a skull - the Nazca were possibly keen on chopping off heads as trophies and the pot head burials may be connected to this in some way. Yomangani^talk 13:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FA push question

• Off and on since this article was created we've mumbled a little about trying it out in FAC.
• The format is a bit unorthodox, in splitting the article into sections geographically. I think we can justify that. However, there will always be many countries and cultures left out – no mention of Russia forex; one sentence about India, etc.. I think we can even justify that, by saying that we made representative choices. Even if we make that argument, we still have nothing on an entire continent (Africa).
• Moreover, there are some passages that are looking a bit under-referenced.
• I'm wondering, do we really wanna try for FAC?• Ling.Nut 05:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have much to add myself, but I think you should go for it, worst that can happen is you will have a much improved page. The ref density does need some work, and a general copy edit would not go amiss. I think the structure is fine, it broadly follows the summary style, except without the daughter articles. I can help with a copy edit, and input at PR etc. Best of luck! Ceoil ^sláinte 10:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly disenchanted with the FA process and don't think I would reccommend it to anyone. I am also reluctant to participate myself. I think this article will inevitably face a challenge on the "comprehensive" criterion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said much the same as Maunus before, and see the thread 2 up. We need some anthropological generalizations in. The Hindu tradition is to burn 'em quick, without much in the way of memorials, & we do mention Islamic tombs there. We namecheck Lenin's tomb; traditional Russian memorials are a pretty simple variant of the usual Christian stuff - if you were very grand you built a new church with a simple sarcophagus inside, rather than a big monument in an old church. Older African memorials are mostly in perishable organic materials. The Nok culture terracotta figures may have had a funerary function, but this is apparently uncertain. We might or might not have strong objections on this basis - I think the coverage is actually quite well distributed compared to many FACs - look at the one for Castle, where I agreed on the relatively narrow focus, but this certainly caused trouble. If people can point to material, we can of course include it. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've been in deep hermit mode for a while, reharging my batteries... But heck, let's fish.. or cut bait. I say fish. Going now to FAC. • Ling.Nut 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor editing questions

There are two isolated quote marks, one in reference 9 (Kipfer, "Menhir, 348), and another in the Etruscan section (for their use in the afterlife."). Could somebody with more knowledge of this (i.e. greater than zero) fix them this? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've assumed "However, none of these cannot strictly be called tombs." should actually read "can strictly be called tombs. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

oops, indeed. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In Hinduism

Funeral art is very much part of Hinduism and practiced in India, since many centuries, though not practiced by the common man, Saints, were buried in Samadhi shrines, which were build later on, as in the case of Anandamayi Ma Samadhi Mandir at Kankhal, Haridwar, see File:Ma Anandamayi Samadhi Mandir, Kankhal, Haridwar.JPG. Rajasthan has a long history of its, Chhatris were memorials and samadhis for kings and rulers, an architectural feature adapted by Mughal architecture later on, as seen Taj Mahal and Humayun's Tomb. Another place is Orchha, known for its memorials of local Hindu kings. see File:Orchha mausolea.jpg--Ekabhishek^talk 03:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Need to add something, but won't be today. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Added a bit. Any more good examples to link? Or refs on the origins of this - I don't think they go far back in hinduism? Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Corpse art

Something could be said about art made with the remains of the dead, as in the Capuchin Crypt. --Error (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

added Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

'art' vs. 'monument'

The article seems somewhat confused about 'art' and 'monument.' For instance, in ancient Greece, the white-ground lekythoi depict tomb monuments, often with grieving individuals leaving offerings. The lekythos itself is an example of funerary art, or an individualized art object with a purpose and subject matter that's "funerary" (and as an object also happens to appear as grave goods); the tomb it depicts, and the archaeological remains of such a tomb, is a generic monument, a type of commemoration that (in addition to housing the remains) may or may not be a work of art. So too "sarcophagus": there's nothing inherent in the making of a sarcophagus that causes it to be a work of art, in the way that making a painting or sculpture is inherently the process of making art; the art of a sarcophagus lies in the artistic elaboration, not the box itself. Some of this is paralleled in the problematic relation of art and architecture in general, but in reference to this article, some mausoleums are (or occasion) works of art, but others rise merely to the level of tract housing. All are monuments, in the sense that in addition to housing the dead, they serve as what the Romans called monimenta or monumenta, "reminders" to the living. A dolmen, for instance, is typically regarded as "monumental" rather than "artistic," though we may find it aesthetically pleasing. When megaliths have inscribed figures, it's the figures that raise the philosophical question of how and when deliberate art-making is born, and its relation to religion and magic and commemoration. But the disposition of a megalith is a monumental act.

Anyway, I happened here when I tried to link to "funeral monument" and was redirected to (!) "English church monuments," which was obviously not, um, a global perspective. But since in the article I was working on the distinction between the generic tomb/monument itself and the decoration/art objects/grave goods was precisely the point, I'm a little uneasy about the conflation here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to distinguish between artistic and non-artistic architecture are doomed to failure, and you will not usually find them attempted in academic work. That not all mausolea have much artistic content is not a reason to avoid discussing the ones that do. If you look at the talk page of English church monuments you will see I moved it to that title from the plain one ages ago as the content was nearly exclusively on England. The redirect I suppose predated that. We still lack an article on Christian monuments in general, but this redirect is better than the list you sent it to. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged points removed

really constructive editing, thanks!

I am wondering

whether to remove most of the section on the "Modern period", starting with "Public monuments to the dead . . ......... ". Is this article intended to include monuments and memorials that are not in cemeteries or that do not contain remains of some sort? There are other articles about those things and my feeling is that they don't really belong here. If I hear from someone, we can talk (write). If not, then consider much of that stuff gone. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a big mistake and would strongly oppose. The tradition of large funerary monuments has passed from those commemorating individuals or families to group monuments, inevitably with no or only token remains present. They very much belong here. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, and would oppose removal. I don't think making a hard-and-fast distinction between grave-memorials and cenotaphs or communal memorials is a useful one. This is a short section, which gives an overview of what has happened to funerary art in the modern age. As you say, there are other, fuller articles on war memorials etc, and those are rightly linked; but to delete a summary contextual account from this article seems counterproductive from the point of view of informing the reader. GrindtXX (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That's what I was looking for, other opinions. So to sum up, funerary art need not have remains nor be in a cemetery. Put another way, need not involve a funeral. I don't agree, seems to me that there should be a funeral, but you fellows seem to have made up your minds and you are both editors that I can respect, so, so be it. Perhaps then one of you who feels this way can deal with the lede sentence which states, "Funerary art is any work of art forming, or placed in, a repository for the remains of the dead. " ? Carptrash (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I emailed James Stevens Curl (if you don't know why you probably shouldn't be editing this article) and presented him with our issue. This was his reply:

"I would call these commemorative monuments or memorials rather than funerary monuments. 

Best wishes  

JSC"

There is more but my real life calls. (to be cont.) Carptrash (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now, at least partially, addressed the issue in an edit to the lead. I would agree that I wouldn't immediately apply the term "funerary" to war memorials etc, but I feel that's not really the point. There is already a perfectly decent self-contained article on war memorials. The point being made here – in a fairly short section within a long article – is that, in the more "democratic" 20th century, the tradition and conventions of funerary art developed in new directions, away from the commemoration of individuals and towards more communal commemoration, in which the actual placing of the remains played less part. To focus only on "funerary" in its narrow sense is to lose track of the wider subject matter of the article. GrindtXX (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No, I don't think I'd heard of him actually. He doesn't crop up much in discussion of say Korean royal burials, I can tell you. Of course the narrow point is not disputed, but cenotaphs etc have always been part of the funerary tradition. I hope these edits by GrindtXX & myself have sorted the matter to your satisfaction. I agree with his comments just now. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel that it would be dishonest of me not to post the other reply that I received, this one from from Rudy Koshar (no wikilink) whose work From Monuments to Traces: Artifacts of German Memory 1870-1990 delves more into the more modern sort of art that you guys (gals?) are supporting. He writes:

"Dear Einar, (aka "carptrash")

it's been a long time since I've thought about this subject (my From Monuments to Traces was published in 2000), but I would argue that such public monuments and memorials are indeed forms of funerary art. The twentieth century in particular was an age of war, genocide, and revolution in which casualty totals were unprecedented. Not individual death but mass death became the signature of what British historian Eric Hobsbawm called the "age of extremes." An era of unprecedented human violence and cruelty called for new types of funerary art. If there are no remains, this merely reflects the nature of mass death, in which bodies are either totally obliterated (in the world wars, the Holocaust, at Hiroshima, e.g.) or so badly mutilated it's impossible to identify them. That many such memorials can be found outside cemeteries suggests the sheer scale and scope of mass killing: death was literally everywhere and nowhere, and a funerary art appropriate to the phenomenon had to extend beyond traditional spaces of representation and memory. Also, there are forms of "traditional" funerary art in which the remains have been absent, e.g., when a family patriarch dies and the survivors erect a mausoleum intended not only for the deceased but also for other family members in the future. In short, funerary art over the ages has demonstrated an impressive diversity, and unfortunately the twentieth century offered numerous opportunities for further innovation.

I don't know if this is helpful, but it seems pertinent to your question.

Good luck and best wishes,

Rudy Koshar"

Hmmmm. Pretty good stuff. We might even want to use a part of his answer in the article? Anyway, let's see what happens next, but I will refrain from using Curl as a refernce in any discussion of Korean art. Carptrash (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Sergiusz Michalski, author of ""Public Monuments: Art in Political Bondage 1870-1997" wrote,

"Holocaust memorials, Vietnam memorials etc. do not certainly belong to the domain of funerary art. best wishes, michalski"

Carptrash (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

i started something

here User:Carptrash/Sculptors who produced funerary sculpture and am looking for suggestions as to how, if at all, to fit it in here? Or should it be a separate article? Or one at all? Carptrash (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

List of... I suppose. But if you are just going to do American and British ones of a certain period it should say so. List of sculptors who did not produce funerary sculpture would be a lot shorter, I can't help thinking ..... Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably shorter. but less interesting. Al least to me. There might be folks out there who wonder who made what, where and when (we'll skip "why" for now) and this would be a start. As far as time and place go, If you know the Korean sculptors by all means include them. 00:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Carptrash (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps fortunately, the artists' names are AFAIK unknown, as for almost all ancient and medieval sculpture. But once some artists' names start being known, almost all known sculptors in stone, in Italy etc, will have done tombs, I would guess up to the late 19th century. And then the whole sector was kept busy from 1918 for 20 years or so with war memorials, if we are counting them. But our coverage of the history of sculpture is very thin indeed, apart from bios. Frankly articles like Italian Renaissance sculpture are a more pressing gap to my mind. As always articles on topics rather than particular people or works are our weakness. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the early 20th century sculptors, probably a White Rabbit, complained that we are filling our public spaces with ugly works of men in suits and uniforms. Perhaps I too am falling victim to that habit. I'll try at least get a stub going for Italian Renaissance sculpture and perhaps focus on the 19th -20th century section on Funerary art. Carptrash (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ingrid Roscoe et al., A Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain, 1660-1851 (2009) names over 3000 sculptors, the great majority of whom included tomb sculpture in their repertoire, and a significant proportion of whom are sufficiently notable to merit a wikipedia article, even if they don't have one yet. Add to those the names of sculptors from outside Britain, and outside that date range, and the numbers become unmanageable. (Even medieval monuments are increasingly being rescued from anonymity and attributed to named sculptors, such as Henry Yevele, or the alabastermen Thomas Prentys and Robert Sutton.) So personally I think a List of Sculptors who produced funerary sculpture is a non-starter. More realistic and manageable would be a Category:Sculptors who produced funerary sculpture. And, of course, thematic discussion of sculpture and sculptors (in this article or elsewhere), with names and links, would always be welcome, as long as it was made clear that you weren't claiming to be comprehensive. GrindtXX (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For just these reasons, a category might be objected to as its not "defining" for most sculptors (WP:OCAT). I wouldn't object myself, but it's so ubiquitous I can't get very excited about the idea. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the talents that I have exhibited for over half a century is the ability to generate bad ideas. What I have gained during that same period is the knack of not getingt too attached to them. I can easily let go of most, if not all of the above red linked suggestions. Pooof. Gone,. Carptrash (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Late medieval Europe

Without having looked too much in a few years, don't see a late medieval European section in the history survey...Ling, dunno if you are still around, hopefully so, but may work up a section in a sandbox for inclusion, though it will inevitably be slanted towards the Duke of Burgundy. See also weighting towards this period in Category:Funerary art as to what is meant. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tang Dynasty sancai pottery camel and man.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

TFA?

Hi all, I'm considering scheduling this at Today's Featured Article on the Main Page either this October or in October 2024. This was vetted at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2010–2015, and it looks good to me, but it would be helpful if someone could look at the paragraphs that are missing citations at the end before we run the Main Page gauntlet. (I used the unreferenced passages tool to find these.)

• Such objects may include the personal possessions of the deceased, objects specially created for the burial, or miniature versions of things believed to be needed in an afterlife. Knowledge of many non-literate cultures is drawn largely from these sources.
• Many cultures have psychopomp figures, such as the Greek Hermes and Etruscan Charun, who help conduct the spirits of the dead into the afterlife.
• The discovery in 1974 of the Terracotta army located the tomb of the First Qin Emperor (died 210 BCE), but the main tumulus, of which literary descriptions survive, has not been excavated. Remains surviving above ground from several imperial tombs of the Han dynasty show traditions maintained until the end of imperial rule. The tomb itself is an "underground palace" beneath a sealed tumulus surrounded by a wall, with several buildings set at some distance away down avenues for the observation of rites of veneration, and the accommodation of both permanent staff and those visiting to perform rites, as well as gateways, towers and other buildings.
• Tang dynasty tomb figures, in "three-colour" sancai glazes or overglaze paint, show a wide range of servants, entertainers, animals and fierce tomb guardians between about 12 and 120 cm high, and were arranged around the tomb, often in niches along the sloping access path to the underground chamber.
• However, there are regional, and relatively recent, traditions among royalty, and the samādhi mandir is a memorial temple for a saint. Both may be influenced by Islamic practices. The mausoleums of the kings of Orchha, from the 16th century onwards, are among the best known. Other rulers were commemorated by memorial temples of the normal type for the time and place, which like similar buildings from other cultures fall outside the scope of this article, though Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the most spectacular of all, must be mentioned.
• However, most chortens do not function as tombs.
• An exception in the Classical World were the Lycians of Anatolia. There are also the Egyptian mortuary-temples, where the object of worship was the deified royal person entombed, but Egyptian temples to the major gods contained no burials. An extreme example was ancient Delos.
• As cities became more crowded, bones were sometimes recovered after a period, and placed in ossuaries where they might be arranged for artistic effect, as at the Capuchin Crypt in Rome or the Czech Sedlec Ossuary, which has a chandelier made of skulls and bones.
• Other Islamic Indian rulers built similar tombs, such as Gol Gumbaz.

Probably, some of these paragraphs are covered by nearby citations. Anyone feel like working on this? - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You know its been on MP before? If I were going to work on it there are various places I'd like to add to; I've done little on it in the 14 years since FAC. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that it would be a rerun. There's no rush at all. I do like the article for an October TFA, but I'd like it just as much next year ... would having an extra year help? - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)