Ancient Near East

Acem Hoyuk - Ulama - Purushattum ?

by Joost Blasweiler

Comments are welcome !

Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents

by R.J. (Bert) van der Spek

R.J. van der Spek,  ‘Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents,’ in: M.J. Geller, H. Maehler, A.D.E. Lewis eds., Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World. Papers from a Seminar arranged by the Institute of Classical Studies, the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Warburg Institute, University of London, February to May 1986  (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London 1995), 173-245.

This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic... more This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic period. All kinds of transaction concerning land ownership are discussed, such as contracts of sale, lease, pledge, donation and quitclaims. Attention is paid to different legal formularies and the ways in which ownership was protected. The article challenges the accepted opinion, expressed by Koschaker, Petschow and Cardascia, that the Babylonians lacked a concept of ownership that knew the distinction between ownership as ultimate right (in Latin dominium) and actual possession or holding (in Latin possessio and detentio). Koshaker and Petschow argued for a Babylonian concept of  “divided ownership” of e.g. lessor and lessee of land and Cardascia calls pledge a “conditional alienation” and lease a “temporal alienation”. In my view the Roman distinction between ownership as highest and ultimate right and actual possession, though not identical, is closer to the Babylonian situation.
Another point at issue is the status of temple land and royal land, that was in the possession of individuals, could be sold and leased, yet remained in ownership of the temple or palace (bIt ritti).

At the end of the article ten cuneiform texts are presented in transcription, translation and brief commentary. One of these texts is a very important tablet, discovered already the beginning of the 19th century and copied by Carl Bellino by c. 1818. It was published by Robert Ker Porter in 1822. It was one of the first published tablets, copied and published in a time when the cuneiform script was not yet deciphered. Yet the copy is quite good and readable. I first edited this tablet in my dissertation, where I reproduced Bellino’s copy op p. viii and a transliteration and Dutch translation in the Appendix, text 5, p. 202-11. My dissertation, Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij 1986), is available online:
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15433 ; or
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15433/2/Grondbezit%20in%20het%20seleucidische%20rijk.pdf

In this article I provide an edition with English translation in the appendix as text 9, pp. 238-241. Meanwhile, however, after this publication (1995) a new (partial) edition was provided by Francis Johannès, ‘La Babylonië méridionale: continuité, déclin ou rupture?’ in: P. Briant, F. Joannès eds., La Transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la « Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004, (Paris: De Boccard, 2006), 101-35, on pp. 113-4. In the same volume Michael Jursa discussed the text in note 32 of his article ‘Agricultural management, tax farming and banking: aspects of entrepreneurial activity in Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods’, ibid., 137-222, esp. p. 148.
Both authors suggested improved readings which I shall present here and I shall present a new English translation of lines 4-15, slightly differing from Joannès’s and Jursa’s (esp. line 10).

4. Add ina IGI in the break (Jursa)
7. Add KUR in the break (Joannès)
9. Read [i-(te)-ri-i]š instead of [iš-ku]n; Joannès reads ina áš-bi instead of ina qí-bi, but Bellino’s copy has a very clear qí (KI), so I shall not follow him in this. He reads the personal name mPar-ta-ri-ih?-li-su as mtu!?-ri-il!-li-su (Troilos?). The copy, however, has a clear par-ta. The reading of the first sign, par (UD, tú), is a mere guess. The reading –ut-  is a good alternative. The sign read as ih or il is difficult to interpret. Collation (1984) did not help. It seems indeed that a Greek name is at issue, ending on –lēs, -lios or –klēs perhaps.
10. Read [lúGAL] É LUGAL (Jursa) and ig!-re-e’ instead of EN re-‘i (Joannès and Jursa), from the verb gerû, ‘to start a lawsuit’. See CAD G, p. 62, s.v. gerû, 1 b 3’: dīna gerû. Certainly correct. It is uncertain whether the phrase mišil ... našatat?, “half of the barley which returns from the land, the property of Shamash, is (to be) brought(?) to the royal treasury”, is the result of the verdict (so Jursa), or the reason to start the lawsuit. I opt hesitatingly for the latter option: I suspect that the legal dispute originated in the fact that suddenly in year 9 the chief of the royal treasury requisitioned half of the yield of the entire estate of the Shamash temple.
11. Joannès reads ta-tu-ru instead of ta-tur-ru, but this is erroneous. Taturru is the present tense, which means that the barley is not harvested yet or is in the process of being harvested. Jursa reads na-šá-ti?! sup. ras. instead of na-šá-tat?; both readings problematic. Collation did not help. I assume that the form is a fem. stative of našû. Note that taturru is also feminine . The subject, uțțatu, “barley”, is feminine.
13. Read mu-šu-ur instead of  MU-šu lu (Joannès and Jursa). Certainly correct. From the verb uššuru (wuššuru, muššuru), “to let go; to release; the hand over; to exempt, remit debts, annul obligations”; cf. CAD U and W, s.v. uššuru, p. 310-325. It is probably a stative: muššur ; cf. undašar for undaššar in line 13.
19. Both Joannès and Jursa read É LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI as Bīt šar Bābili, and do not interpret it as Treasury (Bīt šarri =lit.  ‘house of the king’, but always ‘royal office’, ‘royal treasury’ or ‘royal estate’) of Babylon (TIN.TIR.KI), but as the locality with the name Bīt šarri Bābili (mostly written, however, with the determinative for ‘city’ URU), a locality close to Babylon. N.B.: the royal treasury is mentioned in line 10! If so, Iltalimatu has nothing to do with the royal treasury of Babylon and is no more than some city governor who accidentally had rented an estate belonging to the temple of Shamash.

New translation of lines 4-20:

4.  [.......... arable land,] property (makkūru) of Shamash, king of the world,
5.  [.......... was at the disposal of Ilt]alimatu, the governor
6.  [of Bīt-šar-Bābili,] the slave of Intaphernes, the governor
7.  [of the land? Sa?]-gashtu. Later, in the 9th year
8.  [of Alexand]er, son of ditto (=308-7 BC), he jointly (with the temple) [cultivate]d(l. 9)  the land in question
9.  and he started lawsuits at the command of Partarihlisu (Uttari x lisu),
10. [the chief] of the royal treasury (on account of the fact that) half of the barley in question, which will return from the arable land,
11. [the pro]perty (makkūru) of Shamash, is (to be) brought to the royal treasury.
12. Iltalimatu will leave(l.13)  the arable land at the disposal
13. of the exchequer (makkūru) of Shamash and the barley, the rent (sutu) of this arable land,
14. is relinquished(l. 15) by the exchequer of Shamash to Iltalimatu.
15. There will not be(l. 17) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of the Temple Council (kiništu)
16. of Ebabbar with regard to the barley, the rent (sutu) of these arable lands,
17. against Iltalimatu in perpetuity
18. and there will not be(l. 21) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of Iltalimatu,
19. the governor of Bīt-šar-Bābili, with regard to these arable lands
20. against the exchequer of Shamash and the Temple Council of Ebabbar in perpetuity.

This document is a verdict concerning a legal conflict between two parties, namely Ebabbar, the temple of the god Shamash in either Sippar or Larsa, and a certain Iltalimatu, the governor of Bit-šar-Babili (= a settlement at the edge of the city of Babylon, perhaps the summer palace of Babylon). Apparently some arable land, belonging to the Ebabbar had become at the disposal of Iltalimatu and he cultivated it jointly with the temple, which probably meant that the profit should be divided, half would go to the temple, half to Iltalimatu. The conflict seems to concern the fact that half of the harvest was requisitioned by the state (represented by Partarihlisu), so that Iltalimatu could not pay half of the harvest to the temple (his sutu, his rent). Now Partarihlisu seems to have ordered or advised a lawsuit (or perhaps better a settlement), so that the mutual claims by temple and Iltalimatu were rescinded: Iltalimatu relinquishes his right to cultivate the temple land and at the same time is freed from the obligation to pay his rent to the temple. One should note that it was during or briefly after the Babylonian War between Antigonus and Seleucus (311-308) when the grain prices were extremely high.  Now the result of this lawsuit is: half of the yield of year 9 (308-7 BC) goes to the royal treasury and the contract between Iltalimatu and the temple is dissolved: the temple is granted ownership rights of the arable land and Iltalimatu is freed from paying rent to the temple in perpetuity.

The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology

by Peeter Espak

2010, University of Tartu, PhD dissertation, 284 pp. 2010, University of Tartu, PhD dissertation, 284 pp.

Watercraft

by Robert Carter

Carter R.A. Watercraft of the Ancient Near East. In ed. Potts D.T. A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Malden MA, Wiley-Blackwell: 347-372.

A study of watercraft in the Ancient Near East, focused on Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf, and on the prehistoric... more A study of watercraft in the Ancient Near East, focused on Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf, and on the prehistoric periods and Bronze Age. With some reference to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, and later periods.

TELL AL- MASHHAD REPORT ON 2010 SEASON

by francesco benedettucci

Unpublished Report

La divinazione nel Vicino Oriente antico

by Erica Gazzoldi

La divinazione nel Vicino Oriente antico come forma di protoscienza e visione del mondo. La divinazione nel Vicino Oriente antico come forma di protoscienza e visione del mondo.

Yalburt Yaylası (Ilgın, Konya) arkeolojik yüzey araştırması projesi 2010 sezonu sonuçları

by Ömür Harmansah

Harmansah, Omur and Peri Johnson (In press). “Yalburt Yaylası (Ilgın, Konya) arkeolojik yüzey araştırması projesi 2010 sezonu sonuçları.” 29. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı 2012.

Tell al-Mashhad report on 2011 season

by francesco benedettucci

Unpublished Report

Work Notes on Etruscan Mirrors and Murals, Part I

by Mel Copeland

This is a PDF file from our website covering Etruscan Mirrors and Murals, with images compiled from the Etruscan Phrases website http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Phrases_a.html.

In contrast to offerings from the British Museum and University of Bologna, where their analyses, following Pallottino, are generally speculation based on guesswork relating to short funerary inscriptions, the Etruscan Phrases work is supported by a strong grammar and vocabulary based on all texts, small and large. Thus, to clear the mystery of the Etruscan language alleged by such esteemed institutions, it is imperative that the Etruscan Phrases GlossaryA.xls be audited. We mention this since the only prospect of clearing up the Etruscan Mystery is through a verifiable audit of the Etruscan Grammar recorded in Etruscan Phrases. The British Museum, University of Bologna and other "Pallottino School" works have not produced a vocabulary or grammar that can be audited, since their theory is that the Etruscan language is unlike any other known to man, not Indo-European. Etruscan Phrases claims that the Etruscan Language is similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian, an Indo-European language. It offers a grammar, declension patterns and regular, measurable shifts between Etruscan and these languages; ergo the work can be easily audited.

Most important to the work are the Etruscan mirrors and murals that contain known Classical stories and the names of the principle characters in the stories. The star of the mirrors is Helen of Troy who was the young daughter of King Tyndareüs of Sparta and abducted by the equally beautiful son of King Priam of Troy, thereby causing the Trojan War. While the entire story has captured the hearts and imaginations of generations since that event (Troy was destroyed ~1180 B.C.) we can presume through Etruscan mirrors that the event was part of their history – and they had a somewhat different recollection of it than the Greek version passed down to us.

Because the story is familiar and linking the genesis of Greek heroes and gods, containing their names and actions, we have comparative texts to use in analyzing the Etruscan language, its shifts from Greek and Latin to Etruscan. For instance the heroes of the story follow a regular shift, of dropping vowels and final consonants, etc. Heracles (L. Hercules) is Hercle (almost like the French, Hercule). Helen’s name declines: Helenai and Helenei, leading us to the declension of other nouns. Her father was Zeus who transformed into a swan and raped the goddess Nemesis THALNA (retribution) who had transformed into a goose. She laid an egg or two eggs, one of which was Helen which was found by shepherds near Sparta and taken to Tyndareüs and Leda to bring up. From the egg came Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world.

The most beautiful man at the time was Alexander, spelled ELCHSENTRE and he abducted Helen from her husband Menelaus, MENLE, the brother of King Agamemnon: ACHMEMNVN. His wife Clytemnestra is CLVTHVMVSTHA who murdered her husband in the bath upon returning from the Trojan War, and their son, Orestes (VRSTE) killed her and her lover in revenge. Athena (L. Minerva) is MENRFA; Hera (L. Juno) is VNI, her consort is Zeus (L. Jupiter) Etr. TINIA. Thetis is THETIS and THETHIS, she was a dangerous shape-changer and compelled by the gods to wed her husband Peleus, PELE; they produced the Greek hero of the Trojan War, Achilles who the Etruscans call ACHLE. The mother of Helen, Leda, is LATFA and her brothers, Castor and Polydeukes (Pollux) are CASTVR and PVLTVCEI. Their father Tyndareüs is TVNTLE. Aphrodite (Etr. TVRAN) was a cause of the Trojan War when she was judged by Alexander as “The Fairest” as written on an apple thrown into the wedding of Thetis and Peleus by Eris (Etr. ERIS). Aphrodite’s son was Eros (Etr. ERVS) – appearing in many texts. Another popular figure in Etruscan mirrors is Hermes (L. Mercury) TVRMS.

Apollo (APLV) and Artemis are represented frequently in the texts. Ajax Telemonos EIFAS TELMVNVS committed suicide after Achilles was killed, because he did not deserve Achilles’ armor. Apollo (APLV) and his sister the virgin huntress Artemis (ARTVMES) were highly active in the Trojan War. The Etruscans introduce a new character like Artemis called MEAN who crowns Alexander, awarding him the hand of Helen, though we understand from the Greek version that it was Aphrodite (Etr. TVRAN) that awarded Alexander the hand of Helen in the Judgment of Paris. MEAN appears to be a goddess of the hunt like Artemis from Lydia, recalling the old name of Lydia, Maionia (Μαιονία). This is just a tease, for the mirrors and murals carry amazing details never before known to modern man. The images, names and texts associated with the mirrors and murals set the baseline for understanding Etruscan Grammar and the words recorded in Etruscan Phrases GlossaryA.pdf. (The most current version available at http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Phrases_a.html.

We should hope, therefore, that there will be many linguists / scholars who will jump at the chance to clear up the Etruscan Mystery and rewrite the histories so clearly overshadowed by the Pallottino School theories, to help even the museums containing Etruscan artifacts explain a bit more about the items in their displays.

Etruscan GlossaryA.pdf an index to about 2,500 Etruscan words that are similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian. Declension patterns follow those in Latin. The 2,500 words equal the repeated words in 6,000 words of the major extant texts. The texts have been frozen in time, covering ~700-400 B.C., representing a lens to understanding the early formation of Indo-European languages, particularly the early Italic-Latin-Celtic languages, such as Italian, French & Romanian / Dacian. (By 45 BC. the language was a dead language - no one understood or could write Etruscan)

This GlossaryA works together with Indo-European Table 1 which refutes theories by the Pallottino school of thought that the Etruscan language is not Indo-European and an isolate, unlike any other language. It is very close to Latin and, curiously, Romanian, Italian and French. The Latin suffix, "us" shifts to "o" as in Italian (Titus vs Tito); first person conjugation patterns are similar to French and Romanian. This GlossaryA provides a quick look at the grammatical structure of the Etruscan language, how closely it coincides with Latin. A more detailed Declension Table can be seen on the Etruscan Phrases website. These PDF documents facilitate independent confirmation of the words in GlossaryA.xls , the Grammar and Declension Table. All words can be examined from actual images of texts on the Etruscan Phrases website. Over 150 texts, with about 6,000 words can be examined at Etruscan Phrases.

The Etruscans surfaced in Italy about 1,000 B.C., reputed to have arrived from Lydia / Phrygia. The Phrygians originated near Macedonia in Thrace, according to Herodotus. One may therefore inquire whether the ancient Thracians (Dacians, Gettae, modern Romanians), spoke a language common to the Phrygians, at the time of the Trojan War and after (~1180 B.C.). The Thracians, Phrygians and Lydians (also dead languages) were allies of the Trojans, according to the Iliad. Etruscan Phrases finds a common vocabulary among Latin, Italian, French, Romanian, Etruscan and Phrygian. While French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian are considered Romance languages, showing a similar Latin heritage, Etruscan is not, of course, a Romance language, as it preceded Latin, at least in the written form (giving Rome its alphabet).

Resolution of the Etruscan Mystery may be likened to Michael Ventris' decipherment of Linear B and Jean-François Champollion's decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics using the Rosetta Stone - written in Egyptian hieroglypics, Demotic and Greek. The decipherment of Etruscan is a bit more challenging, since we have no multilingual Rosetta Stone, but we do have enough vocabulary and grammar to establish that Etruscan is similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian. (Certainly far more vocabulary and a more extensive grammar is provided in Etruscan Phrases than that used by Ventris to claim translation of Linear B as an old form of Greek)

The mirrors with the Devotional Plates may be an easy entry into an audit, for those who are hesitant to examine the larger texts, such as the Zagreb Mummy (Script Z).

Engendering Purity and Impurity in Assyriological Studies. A Historiographical Overview (in preparation).

by M. Erica Couto-Ferreira

With Agnes Garcia-Ventura.

Review of Karen Radner and Eleanor Robson (ed.) (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Bryn Mawr Classical Review (submitted).

by M. Erica Couto-Ferreira

Seleukos I. und das babylonische Königtum

by Ulf Scharrer

in: Kai Brodersen (ed.), Zwischen West und Ost. Studien zur Geschichte des Seleukidenreichs, Hamburg 1999, p. 95-128

Göbekli Tepe – insanlığın ilk kutsal anıtı

by Oliver Dietrich

co-authored with Ç. Köksal-Schmidt, C. Kürkcüoglu, J. Notroff, K. Schmidt

Aktüel Arkeoloji 26, Mart-Nisan 2012, 52-55.

A short account of some recent finds from Göbekli - in Turkish. A short account of some recent finds from Göbekli - in Turkish.

A Radiocarbon Date from the Wall Plaster of Enclosure D of Göbekli Tepe.

by Oliver Dietrich

Co-authored with Klaus Schmidt.
Neo-Lithics 2/2010, 82-83.

The seam and missing corners of the Turin Shroud as characteristics of John Mark's temple garment

by Adrie Vd Hoeven

In this article I identify the garment left by the young man who "ran away naked" (Mark 14,51-52) with the... more In this article I identify the garment left by the young man who "ran away naked" (Mark 14,51-52) with the burial shroud of Jesus (John 19-20) and that young man with the secret disciple John Mark, co-author of the Gospel of John. I explain that it is possible and probable that Joseph of Arimathea bought the garment to give Jesus a burial “as is the burial custom of the Jews” (John 19,40), namely: in a garment. I also identify John Mark as having a high office in the temple, for which he wore a white sindōn with an ornamental margin, at the corners of which a blue cord could be fastened or loosened, in order to fulfill both the commandment of Num 15,38 for all garments and the conflicting commandment of Ex 28,5-6 for temple garments. This may account for the seam and margin in the Turin Shroud. I also account for the two missing corners of the Turin Shroud margin as an effort by John Mark to hide the fact that the burial shroud was his unique temple garment. The image of an oval plate with three Hebrew letters on it, which can be seen under the chin of the body on the Turin Shroud, may be the image of John Mark’s petalon, the Jewish ornament which distinguished him as a ruler.

Internal selvedge in starched and dyed temple mantle - No invisible repair in Turin Shroud - No Maillard reaction

by Adrie Vd Hoeven

Version May 18, 2012. Another two additions:
Transformed starch on image fibers can not be the result of a Maillard reaction (p. 33, new 4.2.4.), and a reference to the scientific article on the image’s double superficiality (note 341).

In 1988, the radiocarbon dating of a sample from the Shroud of Turin yielded a 13-14th century date (1260-1390). The... more In 1988, the radiocarbon dating of a sample from the Shroud of Turin yielded a 13-14th century date (1260-1390). The scientists involved in the radiocarbon dating announced that the Shroud was medieval. However, many other evidences about the Shroud had already indicated that it couldn’t have been produced in the 13-14th century, and that it is much older. The announcement of a medieval date opened the doors for further studies that countered the radiocarbon dating. During these new researches, many hypotheses were established to help explain the discrepancy. One hypothesis, based on the unexpected presence of cotton and a gum crust in the carbon dating area, says that the carbon dating sample was chemically anomalous in comparison with the main part of the Shroud and that this sample contained a 16th -century repair. In this article I will question both this “anomaly” and that there was a repair, and propose another explanation for the research results: the Turin Shroud, already identified as a Pharisaic priest’s temple mantle in other ways, has an internal cotton-linen selvedge at the Pharisaic seam in the sample area; the mantle was also starched and slightly dyed with Madder at manufacture, to strengthen and give a uniform color to the temple garment, that – as the Talmud commentary Maimonides says of any temple garment – should look new and was not allowed to be washed. Later, when the Shroud was surviving the fire of 1532 AD, in light scorch areas, such as the radiocarbon dating area, the starch coating was roasted to a starch gum coating.

Babylonian Calendar for 2000-2019

by Mathieu Ossendrijver

M. Ossendrijver, 2012: `Babylonian Calendar for 2000-2019. First appearances of the lunar crescent in Babylon computed for 2000-2019'

Die Funktionen des Palast der hethitischen Großkönige in Bogzaköy-Hattusa, in: F. Arnold, A. Busch, R. Haensch, U. Wulf-Rheidt (Hrsg.), Orte der HErrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren, Menschen-Kulturen-Traditionen 3 (Rahden 2012) 81-96

by Andreas Schachner

Beyond Aššur: New Cities and the Assyrian Politics of Landscape

by Ömür Harmansah

Harmanşah, Ömür; 2012. "Beyond Aššur: New Cities and the Assyrian Politics of Landscape," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 365: 53-77.

This article investigates the making of Assyrian landscapes during the late second and early first millennia b.c.e.... more This article investigates the making of Assyrian landscapes during the late second and early first millennia b.c.e. From the late 14th century b.c.e. onward, the Assyrians designated the emergent core of their territorial state as the “Land of Aššur” in their royal inscriptions. However, over the course of the next several centuries, the cultural geography of the Land of Aššur was continuously redefined while gradually shifting northward from the arid environs of the city Aššur to the well-watered and resourceful landscapes around the confluence of the Tigris and the Upper and Lower Zab Rivers. Contemporaneously, the landscapes of the Upper Tigris basin (southeastern Turkey) and the Jazira witnessed extensive settlement and cultivation as Assyrian provinces and frontiers. Drawing on archaeological survey evidence and a critical reading of the textual accounts of urban foundations, this paper argues that such mobility of Assyrian landscapes was part and parcel of broader processes of environmental and settlement change in Upper Mesopotamia. Assyrian annalistic texts point to an elaborate rhetoric of landscape that portrays state interventions in the form of city foundations and building programs, construction of irrigation canals, planting of orchards, opening of new quarries, and settlement of populations. Furthermore, the making of commemorative monuments such as rock reliefs and stelae allowed the Assyrian state to inscribe symbolically charged places in foreign landscapes and incorporate them into the narratives of the empire. By drawing attention to the long-term trends of settlement in Upper Mesopotamia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages and the agency of landscapes, the article contextualizes the Assyrian political rhetoric of development at the time of a highly fluid world of geographical imagination.

Agency, Performance and Recitation as Textual Tradition in Mesopotamia. An Akkadian Text of the Late Babylonian Period to Make a Woman Conceive (in preparation).

by M. Erica Couto-Ferreira

In Magali de Haro Sanchez (ed), Écrire la magie dans l’Antiquité – Scrivere la magia nell’antichità. Proceedings of the International Workshop (Liège, October 13-15, 2011). Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège (PULG – Sciences Humaines).