Thank you. (So much for google.)
No suggestion of where it might have come from -- with over 5000 items from that
source acquired in just a few years, it might be possible to tell from colophons
in other tablets some likely locations. --
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>From: Charles E. Jones <cejo@...>
>Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 12:01:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] British Museum numbers
>The BM object registry is online. You can search it here
>or since I already have done that, I can tell you that there
>are nice legible photographs of the inscribed surfaces of the
>tablet; that it was acquired in 1898, purchased from Selim
>Homsy & Co ("This family firm sold a number of cuneiform
>tablets to The British Museum between 1889 and 1902, during at
>least part of the time of which they were based in London.
>Correspondence to Budge from D. Messayeh and N. Ghanima
>[jointly signed] of Baghdad and dated 1894, confirms this as
>they refer to Selim Homsy as "of your city", and clearly use
>Homsy as a London distributor. Roger Homsy (q.v.) and K. Homsy
>(q.v.) are members of the same family business during the
>1930s and 1970s respectively"), and that the BM has 5302
>registered objects from that source; and more...
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 08:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
>>From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
>>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] British Museum numbers
>> The internets turned up a complete copy of
>> Christopher Walker's Index volume to
>> CT 1-50, from which we see that (by 1974) very few
>> tablets bearing that
>> accession date had been published (in that series).
>> I googled both the date number and the eventual
>> number and got lots of hits for
>> catalog numbers of a wide variety of things for
>> sale, but no further information
>> on the BM's group of objects.
>> Irving doesn't answer emails ... --
>> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>> still Jersey City
>> From: Trudy Kawami <tkawami@...>
>> >To: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Sent: Fri, July 2, 2010 11:10:25 AM
>> >Subject: RE: [ANE-2] British Museum numbers
>> >The British Museum number (BM #) is the accession
>> number & strikes me as
>> >remarkably low. Items from Ur excavated in the
>> 1930s have numbers in the
>> >120000 series. BUT the kicker is that in the more
>> distant past objects
>> >did not necessarily receive BM accession numbers
>> the day they entered
>> >the museum (current practice in most museums). Also
>> before the renaming
>> >of the Middle East Dept (was West Asiatic
>> Antiquities), numbers often
>> >carried a WA prefix.
>> >98-2-16,690 looks like a field number which is
>> normally assigned to each
>> >item as it is uncovered. One might expect a
>> complicated number like
>> >that for a large cache of tablets. There is no
>> regular system used by
>> >all excavators now & the past was even more varied.
>> Much of the "minor"
>> >Nimrud material from Layard's excavations still
>> bears just "registration
>> >numbers" -N.1, N.2, etc.
>> >The BM's WA collections are relatively searchable
>> on line. You could try
>> >that or just contact the ME Dept directly & ask.
>> >Trudy Kawami
>> >From: ANEemail@example.com
>> [mailto:ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
>> >Peter T. Daniels
>> >Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 9:14 AM
>> >To: ANE-2 list
>> >Subject: [ANE-2] British Museum numbers
>> >How were BM accession numbers assigned?
>> >I have only just learned of the "Babylonian ABC"
>> identified by Civil,Finkel,
>> >and Geller back in 1998, and would very much like
>> to know where the tablet came
>> >from. British Museum Magazine (or, as some refer to
>> it, "Bulletin" or
>> >"Publication") 31 (1998) is unavailable to me (in
>> case Irving Finkel mentioned
>> >its provenience). Geller's publication in JEOL
>> 35-36: 144-46, which says nothing
>> >on this point but dates it centuries later than
>> Finkel, is overwhelmed by
>> >typographic errors, and Geller's transliteration
>> differs from that by Finkel as
>> >it is reported by Jursa & Weszeli in ZA 90: 78, and
>> Geller's version is followed
>> >by Cross & Huehnergard, Or. 72: 223-28, in their
>> attempt to connect the
>> >syllables used with the West Semitic letter names.
>> >Does the accession number 98-2-16,690 mean that a
>> particular group of objects,
>> >whose origin was recorded, was processed on that
>> day in February 1898? Is there
>> >any way of learning where those materials came
>> from? Or does it bear no relation
>> >to anything at all and 689 could be a Sanskrit
>> manuscript and 691 a campaign
>> >button for a local by-election?
>> >The current number is BM 25636, in case there is an
>> index using that system.
>> >Thank you.
>> >Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>> >Jersey City
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]