The aim of this article is to clarify the peculiarity of Šulgi hymns by focusing on "familial relationships" between gods and the king and to probe his intention of expanding the divine family to praise himself.

　Although Sumerian royal hymns had been created for as long as 400 years, from Ur III to Old Babylonian period (ca. 2100-1700 B.C.), there are not many texts referring to gods as a kings "parents" or "siblings" except those of early Ur III period. In the reign of Šulgi, the second ruler of Ur III dynasty, a variety of divine "familial relationships" was described in the royal hymns to show off intimacy between the king and his divine family members. These descriptions were not much or at all found in the royal hymns after Šulgi's reign. It is noteworthy that there is clear difference between Šulgi hymns and those of his successors in the viewpoint of "familial relationships" between gods and kings.

　In advance of Šulgi, his (mortal) father and predecessor Urnamma had referred in the first place to his divine "mother," goddess Ninsumun and his divine "brother," Gilgameš. In addition to the relationships with these two gods, Šulgi claimed that Lugalbanda was his "father," Utu his "brother and friend" and Geštinanna his "sister."

　Comparing the hymns of two kings in detail, it can clearly be seen that Šulgi emphasized the "familial relationships" in various scenes and contexts while Urnamma only used them as fixed phrases of the king's epithets. The fact indicates that Šulgi intended to display not only an abstract concept of his divine origin but also more concrete images of his belonging to the family circle of gods in order to popularize his divine nature.

This article investigates KS1970, housed in the Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna, and EG4572-N1460, housed in the Oriental Museum, Durham University, two unusual Egyptian painted wooden boxes with gable-shaped lids. The boxes lack firm provenance but are both inscribed to Perpaut. They drew attention in the 1990s when Piacentini and Kozloff independently dated them to the second half of the New Kingdom. Kozloff placed them in the reign of Amenhotep III and suggested that the Bologna box might be earlier than the one in Durham. Because of Western Asian elements in the imagery, Kozloff believed that the owner, Perpaut, was probably a foreigner. Piacentini and Kozloff based their conclusions on epigraphy, iconography, and artistic style.

　The present article investigates the boxes from a different perspective, that of the woodworker. We use the measurement survey, an accurate recording of the structural system of the boxes, including details of seam lines, pegs, and lock systems in order to detect traces of trial and error in the work. In this way we can relive the production process as the artisan designed and corrected his work. We also produce the first accurate set of measurements of the boxes. Previous drawings have led to misunderstandings of the boxes' design. Our new technical drawings produce information not previously noted.

　We conclude that Kozloff correctly saw KS1970 as being earlier than EG4572-N1460. We also corroborate her suggestion of foreign influence. She saw it in the painted motifs: we find it in the technical details. No prototype of the gable-lidded box has been found in Egypt, although the shape recalls Old Kingdom burial chambers. Finally, we think that studies of Egyptian woodworking are still insufficient to be used for dating criteria. We need more studies of the sequence of production processes. Detailed measurement surveys, such as the ones used in this article, are required.

The present paper aims to gain deeper insights into the history of the Meroitic kingdom, an ancient state that flourished between the third century BC and the fourth century AD and ruled over the Nile Valley south of Egypt. Particular attention is paid to the problem raised by William Adams, who, in 1976, differentiated between the northern and the southern provinces of the kingdom and, most significantly, concluded that the former left no archaeological remains before the Late Meroitic period. This would mean that the northern province was entirely uninhabited throughout the first millennium BC. However, as László Török has observed, this conclusion seems to be increasingly contradicted by archaeological discoveries. The present paper attempts to further the discussion of this question by investigating the cemetery of Amir Abdallah, one of the few Meroitic sites which are radiocarbon-dated to the first centuries BC. Despite the lack of textual evidence, a close examination of archaeological materials reveals that this cemetery was part of an important Early Meroitic local community—possibly associated also with the nearby cemetery at Missiminia—and that based on the typological features of the graves, the resettlement appears to have taken place with the arrival of the inhabitants from the south. Thus, there is clear evidence of Kushite activity in the northern province at this time.

In this study, I examine the argument of love (ʿishq) of Rūzbihān Baqlī Shīrāzī (d. 1209), also known as the “Master of Ecstatic Utterances” (Shaykh-i Shaṭṭāḥ). According to the prominent French Orientalist Corbin, Rūzbihān Baqlī Shīrāzī’s Kitāb ʿAbhar al-ʿāshiqīn, which I discuss in this study, is his representative work as he describes it as “a treasure of Persian literature.” In this masterpiece, Rūzbihān claims that human love connects with divine love. To prove this connection between human love and divine love, he carefully considered his usage of the term “love,” thereby attempting to dissolve profane image of human love. In addition, he constructed the theoretical argument of love, which could be regarded as the love “theory.” Therefore, I conclude that the appraisal of Rūzbihān revealed by previous researchers tended to excessively emphasize the prominent role of love. Indeed, Corbin mentions Rūzbihān as one of the Sufis belonging to the “Iranian Sufism” trend which ardently stresses on the oneness of the trinity of love, lover, and beloved, such as Aḥmad Ghazālī (d. 1126).Rather, it should be noted that Rūzbihān attaches more weight to the connection between God and man through the intercession of love than love itself, which is a significant point of Rūzbihān’s love theory. Further, I will show the development process of his love theory, in order to suggest the importance of his attachment to the special people, such as prophets or saints. From this viewpoint, I would like to re-examine Rūzbihān’s love argument and elucidate the actual role that his love theory plays in his works.

Ṣāʾin al-Dīn ibn Turka al-Iṣfahānī (d. 1432) is among the most neglected figures in the history of Arabic-Islamic philosophy. True, his Tamhīd al-qawāʿid (“Introduction to the Principles,” TQ) has been highly evaluated within the Iranian ʿirfān circle since the late Qajar period; as the author of TQ, he is considered in this circle to be a precursor of Mullā Ṣadrā’s (d. 1640) alleged “synthesis” of Ibn al-ʿArabī’s (d. 1240) Akbarian mysticism, al-Suhrawardī’s (d. 1191) illumi­nationist philosophy, and al-Ṭūsī’s (d. 1274) revived Avicennian philosophy. Modern historians, however, adopt this evaluation while conducting, effectively, no detailed analysis of the contents of the work. Even Melvin-Koushki, who explores in detail the lettrist-occultist dimensions of this politically afflicted polymath’s Weltanschauung, has not gone so far as to redress their inaccurate understanding of TQ itself.

In this paper, I will focus on two central issues addressed in TQ: 1) that “absolute theology” (al-ʿilm al-ilāhī al-muṭlaq) is the highest science, whose subject-matter is “existence” (wujūd) as such; and 2) that existence is the Real (al-ḥaqq). What is noteworthy is that Ibn Turka discusses both issues with (critical) reference to major philosophical texts, such as the Ilāhiyyāt of Ibn Sīnā’s (d. 1037) Shifāʾ (on his conception of metaphysics as the regina scientiarum), al-Suhrawardī’s Ḥikmat al-ishrāq (on his thesis that existence is a mental construct), and the Ṭabīʿiyyāt of al-Ṭūsī’s Sharḥ al-Ishārāt (on his theory of the prerequisites for something being analogical). By analysing Ibn Turka’s arguments on the aforementioned two issues while clarifying his positions towards the theses of earlier philosophers, I aim in the present study to indicate the place of this late medieval Akbarian mystic in the post-Avicennian history of philosophy.

This paper considers gifting customs between the Ottoman ruler and officers at the Royal Festivity celebrating Prince Mehmeds circumcision in Istanbul in 1582. By analyzing business and accounting records, the customs for gifting and forms of rewards are elucidated.

At the circumcision festival in 1582, a wide variety of gifts were presented both domestically and from abroad. Gifts, especially from within the empire, followed the contemporary gifting customs with regard to the types of items and their quantity. A combination of luxury fabrics and vessels was considered to be the basic style, and ritualistically, the number of items was based on the odd numbers so esteemed in the Islamic world. These gifting customs were well rooted and known in the 16th-century Ottoman Empire, especially for the local officers such as beylerbeyis and sancakbeyis.

In return, Sultan Murad III gave rewards in various ways. Generally, vassals were rewarded with luxury fabrics and kaftans signifying honours and possessions. These cases also confirmed that cash or tax collection rights, serving vassals as regular income, were given by the Sultan.

As for the role of fabrics in the gift exchanges, fabrics were gathered to Istanbul from various areas and some of them were then delivered to the two treasuries of the Empire. In addition, it was fabrics and kaftans made by luxury fabrics that were rewarded to vassals. In other words, fabrics useful as high-quality gifts also functioned as a medium signifying loyalty and protection between the Ottoman ruler and officers in the gift-exchange system of the Ottoman Empire.