Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:01:18.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Stamp Seals III. Impressions of Stamp Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae and Jar Handles. By T. C. Mitchell and A. Searight. pp. 314. Leiden, Brill, 2007.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

John MacGinnis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 522 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A very good example of this is in the impressions of the stamp with the cuneiform inscription dDUH.DUH on the left side (cf. No. 377, where the other occurences are also listed). Bearing in mind that there was an established iconography for the indigenous Mesopotamian gods, and that this inscription occurs on the seal of a sepīrm (Aramaic scribe), could this be a way of writing the name of an Aramean god?

2 For the latest interpretation of these see M Roaf & A Zgoll, “Assyrian Astroglyphs: Lord Aberdeen's Black Stone and the Prisms of Esarhaddon”, ZA 91 (2001) pp. 264–296.

3 There are exceptions, for example No. 377 (BM 75492) which is listed and drawn, No. 400 (BM 64082) which is listed but not drawn.

4 Example are No. 398 (BM 60662), No. 448 (BM 64098) and No. 475 (BM 65771), but there are many others.

5 The lack of heed paid to the cuneiform is in sharp contrast to the attention given to Aramaic inscriptions. In No. 80 (ND 2348) the Aramaic is translated but the cuneiform is not.

6 Thus on p. 18 Mitchell attributes George Smith's 1876-11-17 collection to Sippar and Tell ed-Der, following Budge, although it is well known that these texts are from the Egibi archive from Babylon. He then repeats the same incorrect Sippar provenance for the 80-10-12 and 81-6-25 collections (and the references to Reade and Walker do not support him).

7 C Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes and the End of the Archives”, AfO 50 (2003) p. 150–173.