Some ghost facts from Achaemenid Babylonian texts

Abstract

The remarks below on UET 4 193 aim to correct the published accounts of that text in response to inquiries about its chronological implications. The long epigraphic comments are necessary to explain what might otherwise seem to readers unfamiliar with cuneiform script to be a suspiciously sharp discrepancy in interpretation. I take the occasion to append comments on two other ‘ghost facts’, a term meant as an analogy to ‘ghost words’.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 80 citations exist upstream.