Talk:Nimrud ivories

"Ivory room"

I see the Indie has a rather different version: "The most significant pieces were found buried in sludge at the bottom of several wells in the city's north-west palace. They had been thrown there at the time of Nimrud's destruction by the Medes and Babylonians in 612BC." [1]. We should get the words "relief plaques" in somewhere, as this is what most seem to be. This book contains a much more detailed account, and this one covers style. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the BM page on the ivories (which I understand will be up soon) will clear up a lot of the confusion and discrepancies in the newspaper sources, and give some more detailed discussion of the ivories themselves. BabelStone (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On past form it won't go into the details the books do, but will obviously be very useful. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely some confusion in the newspapers. As I've just stated in the article, there were actually multiple discoveries of ivories over a period of more than 120 years. Mallowan's finds were mostly at the bottom of wells; the "ivory room" was found by Oates some years later. It seems that the press is attributing both discoveries to Mallowan, which is incorrect. Prioryman (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the BM press statement, which I have only just found, is far from enlightening. One of my big questions is how many pieces did the British Institute for the Study of Iraq have, and how many will the BM be getting? -- are the "1,000 numbered items, as well as a further 5,000 fragments or unnumbered pieces" the total number that the BISI had or the number the BM is getting as its 2/3 share (I suspect the former)? But then the press release goes on to say that "65 choice pieces, which forms the final third of the collection, remains in the possession of BISI and it is hoped that in the future these can be returned to Iraq" -- since when was 65 a third of 6,000?! BabelStone (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're asking too much of them - they're curators, not mathematicians. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

This sentence appears to be in error: "The collection of ivories uncovered by Mallowan were divided between Iraq and Britain, where they remained at the British Institute for the Study of Iraq (formerly the British School of Archaeology in Iraq) until 1987.[7]"

It wasn't called the British Institute for the Study of Iraq in 1987. I dug in Iraq in 1989, just before the first Gulf War, and the School was still being called the British School of Archaeology in Iraq then, rather than the British Institute for the Study of Iraq. The sentence should be changed to: "where they remained at the British School of Archaeology in Iraq (later to become the British Institute for the Study of Iraq) until 1987.[7]" I don't know at what date the School changed its name to the Institute.

I stayed in the fantastic house where the School was based in Mansour in Baghdad (had to sleep on the roof as all the bedrooms were full with other diggers) and spent many a happy hour in the library there. 86.143.69.241 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed it myself. It is referred to as the School earlier in the article so to refer to it as the Institute at a time whe it was still known as the School just seems very odd. 86.143.69.241 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I've taken a picture of one of the British Museum's ivories, rather than the (rather blurry) picture from California, and have replaced the previous image with that one. Perhaps the Main Page image could be updated accordingly? Prioryman (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivory

Please specify what type of ivory was used. I assume elephant, but this is not explicitly stated, and given the geographical location of their manufacture, other types could have been used -- especially hippopotamus.81.157.194.221 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The BM database does not appear to have these listed yet, however this official press release states they are elephant ivory and seems authoritative enough to use in the article. Fæ (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Article clarified. Fæ (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but can it go in the main body of text please as well as the infobox? I rarely look at infoboxes (hate the bloody things, reminiscent of catering to those with MTV-like short attention spans who are unable to cope with anything at length or in depth); surely all pertinent information should go in main text as a matter of course. Important information shouldn't solely be located floating in infoboxes to the periphery.81.157.194.221 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the books I linked above has a long note about the Syrian elephant population, still going in those days, and assumed to be at least partly the source. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with integrating a bit more about the nature of the ivory, my citation in the infobox was a quick fix, I'm not a key contributor to this article, so perhaps someone more familiar with the sources would like to polish this a bit further? On a tangent, I'm slightly surprised that Elephant ivory does not have its own article rather than being mashed in with the general topic of Ivory trade as I thought there would be much more to say about it. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

When I started this article I was thinking only in terms of the collection of ivories excavated by Max Mallowan between 1949 and 1963 that it had been announced that the British Museum had aquired (the Nimrud Ivories), but it is clear that are also many ivories from Nimrud that were excavated by other people at other times and that are held by other institutions. It seems sensible to me discuss all Nimrud ivories, regardless of provenance or current location, in a single article, so I propose expanding the scope of this article to cover all ivories from Nimrud, and renaming the article Nimrud ivories. BabelStone (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible, although Ivories from Nimrud might make the distinction clearer, and Ivories of the Ancient Near East and Egypt in the Assyrian period or something, though cumbersome, would not be a much different subject I think, as there are few others. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A change to one of the shorter names seems sensible and the lead is immediately clear about historic context so I'm not sure this needs to be compressed into the title. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere (I'm a bit tired of policies at the moment). Fæ (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Time allowing, I should be able to expand this article substantially during the course of next week. Prioryman (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think keeping the title simple (Nimrud ivories) is best, although this would not preclude mention of other similar ivories from elsewhere. I don't have time to do a lot of WP editing at present, but I feel that this is an article that has great potential, so it would be great if Prioryman is able to work on it. BabelStone (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible source focusing on the ivories from rooms SW11/12 AND T10

At least mostly still in Iraq:

http://www.bisi.ac.uk/sites/bisi.localhost/files/IN7_1_Hermann_Laidlaw_Ivories_from_Rooms_SW11-12_and_T10.pdf

©Geni (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)