1956–1957

American School of Classical Studies Athens.

November 19, 1956Dear Roger,

Thank you for your letter of November 14. Yes, I agree that arranging the sherds by batches in numerical order would be a suitable way of handling the matter. That method was used in sending the sherds to Philadelphia, as I recall. Of course, there will not be quite so many sherds going back as came because some remain in Tomb groups assigned to Philadelphia and at least one was assigned the [handwritten: UM] outright (Sh 536b). It is the settlement sherds which Dimaios most particularly wants. On one of the upper shelves in the Cyprus room you should find a few objects (mostly sherds, I think) which should also be returned to Cyprus. [handwritten: Diamaios most (right hand side)] of the wooden frame of shelves in the Cyprus room you should find a few objects (mostly sherds, I think) which should also be returned to Cyprus. They were sent to Philadelphia by mistake in Daniel's time, I suppose; and although they have little or no importance, they do belong there.

As for G 17, Vassos in his letter to me did not indicate it as being assigned to Nicosia; but if you have a copy of the official letter of division that should surely take precedence over Vassos' memorandum. As to the graffiti, G 9 was omitted from my list by mistake.

My understanding of the principle governing the division of sherds was that Cyprus Museum took every graffito of which they did not already possess a copy; in other words, they only gave us left-over duplicates, so that I doubt whether they would want to choose any more from those belonging to us. If they did, however, I would say for them to take anything not belonging to a Phila. tomb group-which would except merely G 28, G 59, G 67 and Sh 664. There are several other graffiti with Sh nos. which do not appear on Vassos' memorandum. These belong to Phila. tombs, have been given accession numbers and, as far as I am concerned, should not be mentioned in this connection: Sh 656, Sh 657, Sh 736. That is the number Miss Bruckner gave to Jean Dempewolf who did the actual numbering. I do not know what to say about the 54-28 series. We decided to use this series only for tomb groups (and settlement objects) which were actually given UM in the 1954 division, not the previous division. Jean began numbering Voupha Tomb with 54-28-1 going to 54-28-72 with Sh nos. for the plundered tombs. What you apparently have is the list of settlement objects beginning 54-28-73 and going to 54-28-110. Then she began Kal. Tomb 30 with 54-28-111 and ended Kal. Tomb 44 with 54-28-154. This should be all with the possible exception of Bam. Tomb 4 which I published separately before any accession numbers were assigned. I have a feeling its objects may have been assigned 54-28 nos. but you could check on the spot. Please do let me know in what way you could modify this series so that I can correct my catalogue. Would there be any possibility of changing the [handwritten: lot] number instead of the whole accession number? Or could an A be added after the whole number 54-28-249 will require some adeptness to avoid changing, say, 54-28-49 to 54-28-249 will require some adeptness to avoid smearing the legend into illegibility, especially of the clay is crumbly.

The Al Mina sherds are indeed uncatalogued and belong to their lucky dip, which they use for bartering purposes, I gather. I do not see why Peter Megaw should have any objections to this transfer since it is a case of reuniting the parts of a pot. A Mr. D. Haynes handled the matter for me at the London end in the absence of Peter Corbett.

Regards, Jack

PS. Although the Menander project seems quite dormant at the moment I would be glad to have Beuben's photographs here in case there is a revival of interest. You might also send them with a final ... of Mrs. ...