P227153 image doesn't match museum catalog

[rillian]

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]

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.

[epageperron]

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 <#63 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADMRI43HRK2CP4TTVTLGIDDTQAG5NANCNFSM45K4SNLA> .

[rillian]

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.

[jldahl]

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?

[rillian]

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.