This is a place to list, and begin collaboration on, one-on-one projects within the greater project of British Museum-Wikipedia collaboration. That is - where individual Wikipedians are working with individual curators on particular topics. See WP:GLAM/BM.
Is there an available photograph of the original section of track that is not copyrighted to the British Museum.
Expert peer review of the article.
Missing readings? references?
Any photo would be great but if that is not possible a line drawing or similar might help readers to understand the structure.— Rodtalk20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article by CBF Walker, "A Recently Identified Fragment of the Cyrus Cylinder," Iran 10 (1972) - does the BM have a copy of this?
Does the BM have a transcription (NOT a translation - one's already on the BM website) of the CC's cuneiform text? Transcriptions have certainly been published before - I've added a partial transcription to the article from a PD source - but I've not been able to find a full transcription that we could use.
Before the article goes to Good article review, it would be nice if someone from the BM could review it and provide any feedback.
Can you find out for me if the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus (a closely related document, BM number 38299) is on public display?
Wikipedian User:Andrew Dalby with curator Richard Parkinson[6]? (Department contact Neal Spencer[7])
Questions:
I can find lots of modern material about the decipherment of the hieroglyphics. What I haven't found yet is a bibliography of early publications about the Stone. Does the Museum have such a bibliography in some form or other? If so, is it possible to see it or get a copy of it? Andrew Dalby18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's one very specific question which a curator or a bibliography might be able to help with. Wallis Budge in his 1913 Museum guide to the Rosetta Stone [8] says that the first French translation was published by citizen Du Theil in 1802. I think this is the librarian fr:Gabriel de La Porte du Theil, but I haven't yet found a title or a precise reference of any kind to this work of his. Andrew Dalby12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this specific question is answered. I now see that dear old Budge was inaccurately summarising his own fuller narrative visible on pp. 26-27 here: Du Theil never finished the translation: he handed the job on to Ameilhon. Whose work is available on line. But it would still be good to know if the BM has a bibliography of early publications on the Stone. Andrew Dalby15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question now. I'm trying to narrate the work done on the inscription after 1824. The edition by Letronne, 1840, says that Champollion's ms. notes on the differences between the three versions (Hieroglyphic, Demotic, Greek) were thought after Champollion's death to be lost, but had recently (i.e. late 1830s) turned up among the papers of someone who hadn't been suspected of taking them because he had publicly regretted their loss. Letronne, evidently, doesn't name the name. I expect this story has been fully told somewhere and the name is known: can a curator help me here? Andrew Dalby08:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An email from Richard Parkinson guided me to the answer here: the guilty party was François/Francesco Salvolini (who doesn't yet have an article on any wikipedia). Andrew Dalby20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection if I lend a hand to the English version of the article? Am not trying to steal Andrew Dalby's thunder, just help with co-ordinating efforts on this. I have a fairly extensive bibliography I can draw upon for making references where needed, and I have access to JSTOR via my local library system. I've helped get a couple of articles to Feature status, Ahmose I being relevant to this field. If there's any particular angle you would like to have followed up, let me know how I can help. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jump right in! Any help on any article is always welcome, it is Wikipedia after all :-) You might also be interested in the other project we've got going at the moment in the British Museum collaboration - The Hoxne Challenge. WittyLama20:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you wl, though that is not my area of specialty, and would prefer to leave that to those who are experts in that area. Captmondo (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy with that of course. I've done practically nothing on the English article yet. Over at Vicipaedia la:User:Iustinus is an Egyptologist and aims to help too, but is, I think, short of time. We might turn this into a conference call ... I'm not an Egyptologist: my interests are rather in history (Ptolemaic and 19th century) and in the personalities involved. Andrew Dalby20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like what I have seen you do on the Latin version of the page, and can follow its structure if not its exact content. I also saw your mention of Francesco Salvolini. Will create a short article on him based on what info I have and hopefully that will help you with your efforts. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added substantially to the "Modern discovery" section, with appropriate citations throughout. Also re-jigged some of the pictures, and added a new one from Wikimedia Commons depicting the left and right sides of the Rosetta Stone. Clearly there ought to be more information added about the role it played in the deciphering of ancient Egyptian scripts, and I also think it would be a good idea to include more information about its original use and context. Captmondo (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page is already much improved. I agree with your points fully, and I am hoping and intending to expand those areas, with whatever help you and others may add. I have had to take a couple of days off from all Rosetta Stones, but I aim to be back tomorrow! Andrew Dalby20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my front, as I am currently in Shanghai on business and have been solidly busy since my last edits on this article the previous weekend. I have been reading up on some of the background history of the origins and purposes of the Stone itself (best single source I've found so far is a BM publication) and will tackle that section when I have the time. Cheers from China! Captmondo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the original context for the Rosetta Stone, and I have a question for the BM expert: I understand that the RS documents an exemption from taxes for the local priesthood where it was originally erected. Does that make it the equivalent of this type of decree from the Old Kingdom pharaoh Pepi II? Am looking for an illustration of another object of the "same type" as the stone, and since there's no image for the more directly comparable Decree of Canopus, would the decree by Pepi II serve as a good example? Captmondo (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is cleared for DYK & seems to be teed up for today (June 21) or tomorrow’s main page (as lead item with pic). It has been at Peer Review here for a few days with no comments (its very slow these days) & I’m pretty sure I will pull it out & go straight to FAC this week. I’d be very interested if someone could look at it & make comments – either at the peer review or perhaps better the article talk page, or e-mail, or of course just edit any corrections. Comments from anyone also very welcome at the peer review of course. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I revamped this article a while ago. I've been intending to finish it and take it to FAC for a while but the effort has stalled; an informed eye would help add a sense of direction and gets things rolling again. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm interested in what the best and most up to date sources on this are, more information about its discovery, and also if someone could have a look at the article and check it makes sense. Possibly Jonathan Williams who is mentioned in the Northern Echo article, or is there someone better either at the BM or at the Yorkshire Museum? JMiall₰20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references which inform the following passage in the description are below: ‘A cloak and helmet in the National Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, have been identified as those which the Hawaiian high chief Kalani’ōpu’u presented to Cook, the helmet being placed on his head by the chief.’
The Te Papa cloak I refer to here has museum registration number FE 327, and the helmet FE 328. Adrienne Kaeppler describes this cloak on p.62 of “Artificial Curiosities”… (1978, Bishop Museum). Evidence for its Cook attribution is as follows: “Leverian Museum. Given by Kalani’opu’u to Captain Cook on January 26, 1779, on the occasion described and depicted. Depictions…. Possibly the cloak depicted by Johan Zoffany in his painting, The Death of Captain Cook, ca.1795 (Fig 31).’ The helmet, also traced to the Leverian, is dealt with on p.71. Te Papa regard the cloak and helmet as being those given by Kalani’opu’u and have published this in their catalogue ‘Icons from Te Papa: Pacific’, and on their website: http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/objectdetails.aspx?oid=230445&term=mahiole
Given that the Vienna helmets are recorded as having been in the Leverian also, it may be that they are equal candidates. I have only seen an image of one of the Vienna helmets, and while of the same type, the Te Papa example is certainly more similar to that depicted by Zoffany. If Adrienne has suggested elsewhere that one of the Vienna helmets is more likely to be the one given by Kalani’opu’u than the one in Te Papa’s possession which they received with the cloak, I would be pleased to have the reference. The Kaeppler reference you have included in your entry does not link the helmet to Vienna.
Hi Matthew, I have replied to this and I'm really impressed by the reply. As the Feathered Helmet is on Radio 4 tomorrow, then I'm not sure I shall have time to update wikipedia, but it does appear that there is some doubt as to the hat's current location. Thanks for following it up. Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
