Talk:Eritha

Eritha has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 9, 2025. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Eritha appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Eritha, one of the most significant priestesses in Mycenaean Pylos in c. 1200 BC, was involved in a dispute over the legal status of her religious holdings?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eritha.

Wikipedia

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Eritha appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 February 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Bronze Age priestess named Eritha was the focus of the first recorded legal dispute in Europe?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eritha (2nd nomination).

Wikipedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eritha. 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) 20:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eritha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fascinating article, will take on the review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y replaced one dead URL with a live URL to chapter PDF.
No missing citations Y
Passes spot checks Y Checked #7, #25 & #45 (Lupack 2011, p. 208., Nakassis 2013, p. 171 & Galaty 2018, p. 162.), no issues.

Discussion

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Eritha is one of two women named as religious figures, along with another named Karpathia, in the Pylos tablets. perhaps Eritha, along with another woman named Karpathia, are named as religious figures in the Pylos tablets.
- I don't think this would quite get the point across: it matters that there were two, but it also matters that there were only (exactly) two. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Position in society section, by my reading (and understanding of the period), it looks like we're describing a Palace economy; you may wish to add a link to that, perhaps at the ruling palatial system bit, or perhaps even a short more explicit discussion as to what the general economic system looked like, before contrasting it with the role of women in it.
- I've added the link a bit further down. Honestly, the traditional idea of a "palace economy" for Mycenaean Greece is a bit overstated, and tends to come about when people put too much weight on the Linear B tablets (which were written by/for the palace and record what the palace cared to record: not surprisingly, the picture they paint makes the palace look more important than it probably was!), and I'm not sure this is really the right place for a thorny discussion of how the Mycenaean economy worked. We get across the idea that religious associations had a complicated but not entirely subordinate economic and political relationship to the palace, which I think is the essential bit. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute over Eritha's land is recorded on two Linear B tablets. perhaps reorganize this to Eritha was involved in a dispute over land, recorded on two Linear B tablets.
- I've changed the "The" to an "A", but it's pretty definitely her land: the question of the dispute wasn't who owned it, but in what capacity Eritha owned it (and therefore, probably, what sort of obligations she owed as a result). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: that is all of my suggestions. A fascinating article; I will hope to see it at FAC sometime. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Seed wheat"?

Interesting article, but I'm a bit puzzled by the tablet's transcription:

...so much seed: WHEAT 374.4 litres.

I guess this gives the size of the field in question, expressed in units of grain seeds required to sow it, but I don't know. Can anyone shed some light?

Also, the precision of "374.4 l" is misleading, and it doesn't translate to a readily understandable unit (like acres or such), so I think it would be better to leave to original measurement in there ("20 buckets", or whatever that would have been.) And why is "WHEAT" capitalized?

Anybody know? --Syzygy (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, you're right -- the Mycenaeans measured land by the quantity of seed that would be required to sow it. We could do "X units", but that wouldn't give a modern reader any sense of how much this actually was, since the units in question aren't e.g. buckets, bushels, kilograms: they're just "units". Mycenaean ideograms (characters which stand for words) are conventionally transcribed in capitals. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that -- should the info go into the article as well? It would be nice to have an idea to what the liters of wheat (roughly) translate. --Syzygy (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I reckon the best way to do it would be to revert the transcription to "X units", with a footnote to say "X units is approximately equivalent to Y litres, or Z acres". I'll need to look at some sources to put that calculus together, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]