data icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
data copied to clipboard

P227153 image doesn't match museum catalog

Open rillian opened this issue 4 years ago • 5 comments

The image for P227153 doesn't match the one in the museum's catalog for the cited UM 35-01-397 which shows another paw-print Ur-Nammu brick, but broken and with a different inscription.

rillian avatar May 22 '21 18:05 rillian

The primary publication reference is RIME 3/2 1.1.4 ex. add27. That table only goes up to 25 examples. Is there an addendum somewhere? I was hoping to a find a publication which disambiguates the images.

rillian avatar May 28 '21 21:05 rillian

All the "add" are not in the publications, they are newly identified or missed witnesses.

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 11:00 PM Ralph Giles @.***> wrote:

The primary publication reference is RIME 3/2 1.1.4 ex. add27. That table only goes up to 25 examples. Is there an addendum somewhere? I was hoping to a find a publication which disambiguates the images.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cdli-gh/data/issues/63#issuecomment-850695739, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADMRI43HRK2CP4TTVTLGIDDTQAG5NANCNFSM45K4SNLA .

epageperron avatar May 28 '21 22:05 epageperron

Aha, so it's working backward from the image or its transliteration.

Any idea on the Penn Museum's tablet? I can't make out enough of it to search for a corresponding transcription. I can see {d}nammu lugal a-ni in the first two lines. The catalogue record says Ur-Nammu, but I can't tell if that's really the third line.

rillian avatar May 28 '21 22:05 rillian

Hi, the transliteration is for this object, the close-up is also of the same brick. Shall I simply delete the museum number and make a note in catalogue?

jldahl avatar Jun 14 '21 11:06 jldahl

That's probably for the best.

I'd also suggest updating the composite reference to Q000936. Currently it's grouped with with RIME 3/2.1.1.5 instead of 1.1.4. According to the revision history, the atf described a single column of 8 lines with the 1.1.5 inscription prior to 2013. Looks like the atf was changed to match the image, but the composite number wasn't.

rillian avatar Jun 14 '21 23:06 rillian