MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cuneiform Legal Presence in “The Report of Wenamun”?

2010· article· en· W2119115741 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleventhCuneiformRulerNarrativeHistoryFifteenthLawValue (mathematics)Ancient historyCompensation (psychology)LiteraturePolitical scienceArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article poses a question concerning the possible source(s) of the appearance, in an eleventh-century-BCE Egyptian narrative, of a legal injunction that, surprisingly, finds its closest written analogue in eighteenth-century Babylonian law. The author attempts to answer that question by postulating that the long process of idea transfer could have been facilitated by the Hurrians, a very culturally influential people often overlooked in general studies and discussions of the ancient Near East. This possible cuneiform legal presence in “The Report of Wenamun” (P. Moscow 120) concerns a Babylonian juridical concept known as šurqa(m) mullû(m), which involves, under particular conditions, the replenishment of the value of stolen goods to a victim of theft through municipal compensation. This concept is found on the law stele of Babylonian ruler Hammurabi, as well as in the laws of the Hurrian-influenced Hittites and the Hurrian-controlled municipality of Nuzi in the northeastern Mesopotamian kingdom of Arrapha. The potential Hurrian influence inside the pharaonic palace of Egypt, through royal marriages in the fifteenth, fourteenth, and thirteenth centuries, will also be discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it