A comb is an immediately familiar object, which makes it especially easy to assume we already understand its story. An ancient example still needs the same care as a more spectacular museum piece: identify the record, read its measurements, and separate what is documented from what feels plausible.
Locate this comb, not a generic example
Museo Egizio’s entry for Suppl. 9984/01 identifies a wooden comb from Deir el-Medina. The record assigns it to the New Kingdom, dated 1539–1077 BCE, and associates its acquisition with Ernesto Schiaparelli’s 1909 excavation.
The dimensions are listed as 4.3 × 4.3 × 0.9 centimetres. Preserve the units when copying them. If the displayed record does not label each measurement axis, avoid quietly assigning height, width and depth in a new caption.
Let familiarity generate questions
The object name suggests a place in a discussion of personal equipment, but the brief entry does not name its owner or describe an individual grooming routine. Neither can a modern reader establish the object’s full use history simply by recognising its form.
Write one documented statement and one open question. For example: the museum identifies wood as the material; what additional study would describe the construction or traces of use? Keeping those sentences separate prevents curiosity from turning into an unsupported assertion.
Keep related records distinct
The collection page also points to another comb with a different inventory reference. A related result is another object to investigate, not evidence that the two belonged together.
Our article on scale in online artefact records helps explain why dimensions deserve attention. An ordinary-looking object becomes more interesting when its modest size, specific reference and limits of documentation remain visible in the account.