Tall-i Bakun A is a small Chalcolithic site (ca. the late fifth to early fourth millennium cal. B. C.) situated in the Kur river basin of the southern Zagros. The excavated northern building complex (hereafter Building Unit A) has been recognized as an administrative quarter because of the presence of many impressed clay sealings, while central and southern areas as a pottery workshop.
The uncovered material from Building Unit A, however, included not only administration-related objects, but also pottery production tools and various domestic artifacts. Thus it would not make sense to propose a single funcfion for this unit.
This article attempts to reconstruct various activities at Building Unit A, using the published in situ objects, and to propose a new interpretation on the nature of the Chalcolithic society at this mound. It suggests that Building Unit A consists of at least six to seven households and this household cluster is stratified by some craft and administrative activities. Although we have little information about central and southern excavated areas, three to five household clusters of the same scale may also have existed within the site. The overall evidence seems to indicate that the differentiation of labor occurred within the household cluster rather than between them.

View full abstract

In Egypt, from the Third Intermediate Period to the Roman Period, hieratic or demotic documents concerning property contracts were made between husbands and wives. In this paper, I will examine one group of these documents, “s_??_-documents”, written in demotic.
S_??_-documents have generally been interpreted as “documents of maintenance” or “annuity contracts” from the meaning of the word “s_??_” (lit., “to make live”) or the clause referring to the annual subsistence which husbands were to provide for their wives. Furthermore, the property called “s_??_” which wives entrusted to their husbands also has been looked at as “maintenance” or “annuity” for wives. However, I do not agree with these interpretations for the following three reasons: (1) the word “s_??_” has not been sufficiently examined, (2) these interpretations conflict with the social custom of the time in which it was obligatory for husbands to support their wives, and (3) the clause referring to the annual subsistence for wives is also used in other documents made by couples without the word “s_??_”, but nonetheless, these have not been looked at as “documents of maintenance” or “annuity contracts”.
The aim of this paper is to reexamine the meaning of “s_??_” and to offer an alternative interpretation for the property contracts recorded on the “s_??_-documents”. First of all, through a comparison of the s_??_-documents and the other documents made by couples, I will show that the meaning of s_??_ is not related to the contents of the property contracts recorded on the s_??_-documents but to features of the property itself. Second, through the examination of the features of the s_??_ as property found in other sources, I will show that wives' s_??_s meant the property which wives were allowed to possess on the basis of some specified qualifications. Therefore, we can look at the s_??_-documents as documents which were made to confirm that the wives' s_??_s had been entrusted to their husbands and to show wives' rights and husbands' duties. According to these interpretations, I will also offer an interpretation for the clause referring to the annual subsistence for wives, through a comparison of the s_??_-documents and the other documents made by couples or the documents concerning the loans; the subsistence was the fine which husbands had to pay when they failed to return s_??_ on the due date. This clause guaranteed wives against arrears of the return of s_??_.

View full abstract

Theodore of Mopsuestia is known as a representative of the Antiochene School of exegesis in the Holy Scripture. He was considered heretical in the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople on the charge of being the ‘doctrinal founder of Nestorianism’. However, since the Syriac translation of his Catechetical Homilies was discovered, he has been considered an eminent theologian in liturgical spirituality. The aim of this paper is to clarify the relationship of his typology between the liturgy and exegesis.
Theodore's standard of typological interpretation in the Old Testament is very rigid. He approves only three passages in the Old Testament from the typological point of view; 1) blood of lamb, 2) serpent made of bronze, 3) Jonah in the belly of a great fish. All of these share the same features; 1› these events or passages are cited in the New Testament with a typological meaning; 2› through these process, people actually achieved salvation from death, although the difference between these patterns of salvation and salvation through Christ is immeasurable. The case of Jonah is also investigated in detail, and it becomes clear that it was not the Jews but the foreigners that achieved salvation through both Jonah and Christ.
The theory of ‘catastasis’ or the condition or circumstance of two ages, the present and the future, is characteristic in the theology of Theodore. Christ opened the second catastasis through his resurrection from the dead. The age of the Old Testament falls within the first catastasis, but for us, the baptism means the ‘typos’ of the second. The liturgical action is told as a ‘typos’ of the suffering of Christ, but because Christ's action opened up the second catastasis, the reason why the liturgy is said to be a ‘typos’ is consistent with his theory of catastasis.
Theodore insists that the Christ presented in the Eucharist, and the Corpus of Christ is not a ‘typos’. Theodore's rigid standard of typology seems to have limited the scope of typology very narrowly as compared with Alexandrian theologians, but the continuity of the two testaments remains firm through this rigidity and the sense of salvation in liturgy. The result of Theodore's method offers an opportunity for both historical and literal investigation of the text of the Old Testament, free from an allegorical exegesis.

View full abstract

The present article intends to reconsider the reflections made regarding the illustrations of Sufi orders in Ottoman Egypt, through examination of the organization of al-Khalwatiyya.
Studies on the organization of Sufi orders in Ottoman Egypt face two major drawbacks. First, their approaches are based on the modern concept of “institution, ” neglecting the members' perceptions of the orders they adhere to. Second, the studies describe the conditions of the Sufi orders exclusively within the context of popular culture, ignoring approaching such a phenomenon as the product of high culture.
Given that al-Khalwatiyya was wide-spread among the ‘Ulama’ of Azhar, the present study scrutinizes the conditions of a given Sufi order in a society of learned. By making use of hagiographical texts (manaqib) written by members of al-Khalwatiyya, and also, the chronicles of al-Jabarti, a member of the order in question, as main referential sources, the scrutiny would be rather draw on the perceptions of the members of the order.
The organization of al-Khawatiyya, as illustrated in the sources cited above, is as follows. While, past studies described it as being divided into several sub-orders, the members of the order never viewed themselves as such. They rather perceived that they belonged to a tariga, in this case, al-Khalwatiyya. Such does not deny that their activities were not confined to small groups. So al-Khalwatiyya's orginzation could be perceived as bidimensional: a tariga, to be viewed as a mode of devotion rather than as a social group, and, and master-centered groups, where actual religious activities took place.
Also, one should not consider the group's organization as rigid, for it consisted of the direct bond linking the master to his pupils, while and interfollowers ties were quite weak, leading to its disintegration once the master passed away.
In conclusion, these perceptions of al-Khalwatiyya as reflected in the selected sources indicate that the organization of Sufi orders was totally different from that of modern “institution.”

View full abstract

Within the various theoretical perspectives of Islam, the issue of legitimacy of rule has traditionally been dealt with most notably as that of legitimate ruler. This apparently holds true in the both cases of the theory of the Sunni caliphate, and that of the Shi'ite infallible Imamate. The contemporary debate in the Islamic Republic of Iran over the differing perspectives on the sources of legitimacy of the rule of the jurist (wilayat-i faqih), on which I have previously published an article in this journal, was no exception.
In this article, I will further consider the question of legitimacy in Islamic rule by examining the contemporary debate in the Islamic Republic of Iran with the following steps. First, I will start the examination with bearing the following question in mind, that is, is it still convincingly arguable that the issue of legitimacy of rule in an Islamic regime can be adequately dealt with by considering who is the legitimate ruler, even after the establishment of an regime called “Islamic republic” in Iran? Second, I will attempt to enlarge the scope of the investigation by examining two articles written by Sa'id Hajjarian (b. 1954), a leading non-clerical theoretician of Iran today.
After carefully reading the two articles published in Rahbord and 'Asr-e Ma, respectively, I will preliminarily conclude that with the establishment of the Islamic Republic, a new perspective on the issue of legitimacy of rule in Islam, that is, the issue of the legitimacy of the regime has been successfully brought into the debate, and that very interestingly, this normative concept concerning the nature of the regime takes a logical precedence over the legitimacy of the ruler in the argument of Sa'id Hajjarian. The article ends with a note that in a future examination, I intend to further critically examine the so-called intikhabi perspective of the legitimacy of the wilayat-i faqih system in light of the expanded debate on the issue.

View full abstract

This article analyzes the Islamic political thought of Abudurrahman Wahid through the reading of his essays in Mengurai Hubungan Agama dan Negara (1999), and other books.
Abdurrahman Wahid states that he approaches the state-religion relation socio-culturally. The aim of this approach is not establishing Islamic state directly through their penetration into the goverment which is often adopted by Islamic reformist groups, but the socio-cultural reform in a long term through NGO or mass religious organizations such as NU and Muhammadiyyah.
According to him, the present constitutinal regime of Indonesia is legitimized as Dar Sulh (state of truce), in which Islam is not institutionalized by the government, however the freedom of the muslims to practice their religion is guaranteed.
He says, “the conception of Dar Sulh is so fruitful as to solve a lot of contemporary ploblems if only it is understood properly and fully developed, ” although his understanding of the concept of Dar Sulh is different from what the classical fiqh literatures defined, i. e., a state which has the truce with Dar Islam.
Abdurrahman Wahid rejects the Islamist demand for the establishment of the Islamic state in Indonesia, saying that it is contrary to the traditional Shafi'i legal theory of Dar Sulh. But his rejection of Islamic state seems to be the result of his negative assessment on the level of Islamic knowledge among Indonesian muslims as well. He says, “We are still in the process of establishing Tawhid (ke-Esa-an Allah) and are not so far from it” and “we must start our social reform from the society which is still in the stage of Jahiliyah, where the people know only Tawhid and nothing more.”
Thus, according to his bitter perception, what Indonesian society needs now is not the establishment of Islamic state enacting Islamic laws but the popularization of the teaching of Tawhid through socio-cultural reform based on Islamic universal moral values.

View full abstract

A new transliteration and translation of the Avroman Parchment No. 3 (British Library Or. 8115), written in Parthian, is given here.
Transliteration based on P1. III in Minns 1915:
1. ŠNT IIIC YRH' 'rwtt MZBNW ptspr BRY tyryn
2. ZY MN bwdy KRM' 'smk MH 'bykškn PLG y't
3. W ZBNW 'wyl BRY bšnyn KZY 'HY KL' ZWZN XX XX XX IIIII
4. MH MN bwmhwtw '(py) h (w) z hmy 'KLW QDMTH
5. ŠHDYN tyrk BRY 'pyn (m..g) BRY ršnw 'rštt
6. B (RY) 'bzn grybnzwy B (RY) mtrpry synk BRY m'tbwg
7. [] (.) KRM' 'smkn KRM' ZBNT 'wyl MN
8. ptspr (K) L' ZWZN XX XX XX IIIII
1.4 '(py) h (w) z: '(p) [y] h [w] (z) in the present state;
1.5 (m..g): (m) [..] (g) in the present state.
Translation:
“Year 300 (=A. D. 53), month Arwatat, Patspar son of Tiren from Bod sold a half part of the vineyard Asmak which is within the ploughland; and Awil son of Bašnen bought it for a total of 65 drachms, (the price asked) by the landowner, ‘as brothers’ (> on equal terms with the seller?). They swore together that there should be no accusation, before the witnesses: Tirak son of Apen, M…g (?) son of Rašn, Arštat son of 'bzn (?), Grybnzwy (?) son of Mihrfriy and Senak son of Matbog. Awil bought [] vineyard, Asmakan vineyard from Patspar for a total of 65 drachms.”
On the readings:
1.3 KZY: nzd in Gignoux 1972, but his reading is impossible.
1.4 'pyhwz or 'pyhwn: 'tyhrw in Gignoux 1972, 'py hrw in Perikhanian 1983; previous scholars read the fifth letter as {r}, but that reading is not correct because they, probably, overlooked a wormhole which covered the uppermost part of the letter. —now the wormhole has become larger and covered the entire area where the letter existed. For the reading of the final letter, see Haruta 1992: 33 n. 27; see also the length of the first letter {Z} in ZWZN in 1.3.
On the translation:
1.3 KZY 'HY “as brother (s)”: I tentatively interpret the phrase as “as equals, on equal terms, ” though one can translate it as “as partners” or “as co-owners.” KZY 'HY may be related to βραδδιγογο in Bactrian [Sims-Williams 2000: 82-83 (Document P), 187].
1.4 'pyhwz hmy 'KLW /apexwaz ham xwart/“They swore together that there should be no accusation”; or 'pyhwn…/apexwan…/“…there should be no claim”: for 'pyhwz “without accusation”/ 'pyhwn “without claim, ” cf. 'pw šk'rw, 'pwyx's, etc. in Sogdian [Yoshida et al. 1988] and αβηδαχοαυο, αβηχοαυδο, etc. in Bactrian [Sims-Williams 2000]. For the Aramaeogram 'KLW “to swear, ” cf. Herzfeld 1924: 134-135 and Haruta 1992: 29, 32 n. 27; Schwartz [1989] discussed in detail the verb √xvar- “to swear, ” a verb homophonous with “to eat.” Note that this interpretation is possible only when you read the document in Parthian; this is the strongest evidence, I think, against the allegation that it was written in Aramaic.

View full abstract

Historical astrology is the branch of astrology that deals with political and religious history by using the conjunctions of the superior planets. This kind of astrology had been developed in Sasanian Persia on the basis of the Indian system of yuga.
The Book of Religions and Dynasties attributed to Abu Ma'šar (787-886 A. D.) is the most complete surviving work that gives us a systematic account of the full range and methodology of historical astrology. The most significant difference between The Book of Religions and Dynasties and other surviving texts concerning historical astrology attributed to Sasanian and early 'Abbasid astrologers, such as Zoroaster, Gamasb, Maša'allah, and al-Kindi, is that only the former attempts to explain philosophical and technical principles.
According to The Book of Religions and Dynasties, astrological interpretation is mainly based on four kinds of conjunction and four horoscopes. Out of the four conjunctions, three are those of Saturn and Jupiter, occurring every 20 years in each sign, every 240 years within the same triplicity, and every 960 years returning to the first sign, and one is that of Saturn and Mars every 30 years in the sign of Cancer. The basic horoscopes are set up for the vernal equinoxes in 571 A. D., i. e. the year of conjunction indicating the Religion, in 622 A. D., i. e. the year of Hegira, in 749 A. D., i. e. the year in which the shift of rulership to as-Sawad (the 'Abbasids), and in 809 A. D., the year in which the sign of conjunction moved from a watery triplicity to a fiery one.
Historical astrology was introduced from the Sasanian tradition by al-Mansur (ca. 713-775) as one of the policies by which he could lay the solid foundation of the newborn dynasty, and it was used most effectively among the early 'Abbasids. The Book of Religions and Dynasties will cast a new light on the future studies of Sasanian and early 'Abbasid dynasties.

View full abstract

Kitab al-Islah (The Book of Correction) by Abu Hatim al-Razi, a leading Isma'ili da'i or missionary in Iran of his time, has been regarded as an important text of the Isma'ili movement of the 4th A. H./10th C. E. century. This is because, by attacking the work of his correligionist Muhammad al-Nasafi, the now-lost Kitab al-Mahsul (The Book of Product), al-Islah contains one of the earliest Isma'ili Neoplatonist expositions.
In addition, we would suggest that the discourses interpreting the Qur'anic and Biblical tales of the prophets in Kitab al-Isah can be utilized as materials that shed light on one aspect of al-Razi's life history —that is, his missionary activities— and reflect the religiopolitical situation of his time. This suggestion is based on the fact that some Isma'ili thinkers of the 4th/10th century interpreted the Qur'anic tales of the prophets as providing paradigmatic patterns for explaining historical events of the recent past. W. Madelung also apparently based his approach to thought on religiopolitics of the time as seen in al-Islah on this fact, but he did not clarify his theoretical base.
As an example of the material that can be viewed in this way, a passage can be cited from al-Islah that interprets the Qur'anic story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (the 27th surah of the Qur'an). According to this interpretation, Solomon was the legitimate deputy of the hidden imam of his time, and the Queen was the dissident leader of those who recognized only the authority of the hidden imam. Thus al-Razi was critical of the Qarmatian idea of the imminent advent of the hidden seventh imam as the Qa'im. Yet since he does not name anyone as the current imam of the 'Alid lineage, al-Razi does not fully recognize the authority of the Fatimids. It can thus be inferred that al-Razi took a rather in-between religiopolitical stance towards the Fatimids and the Qarmatians. Our research also raises the possibility of the existence of a non-Fatimid, non-Qarmatian, Isma'ili group during the first half of the 4th/10th century.

View full abstract