At Balawat in 1956 M.E.L. Mallowan excavated a small group of 18 Neo-Assyrian documents near the Mamu Temple. These are now published here in copies by A.R. Millard and J.N. Postgate, along with four tablets from his later work at the site in 1957 which were not included in Barbara Parker’s edition of the majority of the texts from that season. They are all Neo-Assyrian utilitarian documents from the 7th century BC, mainly “legal” but in a few cases administrative. Parker observed (1963: 89) that the 1956 tablets “are a quite distinct group from the present collection” (that is, the 1957 group), and indeed there is little overlap in respect of content and prosopography between the two groups. A few of the 1956 tablets show that individuals whose private documents were kept in the town were engaged in agricultural and horticultural activities in (presumably) neighbouring villages, but they also include some rather informal conveyances of males and females.

This article is the publication of the first bilingual inscription from Hatra, combining Greek with Hatran Aramaic. It is known only from a slide in the archives of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Hatra and, as the first bilingual document from the city itself, it deserves special attention from a multidisciplinary perspective. The inscription is discussed here in its wider context, first with regard to what it can contribute to our understanding of codeswitching between Greek and Aramaic, at Hatra itself and within the wider Near East, and second concerning our knowledge of the development of the city’s local religious life. It is argued that the new inscription casts light on the way in which the goddess ʾAllāt, under influence of the royal house, came to join the Sun god Šmeš (Šamaš) at the heart of Hatrene religion.

A long-standing classification problem in archaeology is determining the type of weapon delivery system used by people in the past. This is usually done by comparing archaeological points to known dart and arrow points from the ethnographic and archaeological record. There are no simple criteria to discriminate between these two states and the challenge is to identify a subset of traits and their interactions to solve this problem. Here we introduce a Bayesian technique of classifying dart and arrow. Using machine-learning feature selection, we first find the optimal set of variables for classification. We then use a Generalized Additive Model to model the interaction of these variables in a Bayesian logistic framework to capture the nonlinear decision boundary between darts and arrows and assign probabilities of a point belonging to either state. To counteract the imbalance of having more arrows than darts, we adjust the typical decision cutoff using an iterative approach that balances sensitivity and specificity. We increase the sample of known arrow and dart points with 102 previously published specimens from the West. The code for our model is available and easily accessible through an online application. We apply our model to published dart-versus-arrow classifications to demonstrate its utility.

I would like to start this reply by addressing the comments by Gabriela Chaparro and Jamir Tiatoshi. While their remarks mainly foreground their own research trajectories, I treat them as useful contexts for the questions at stake and as opportunities to clarify the scope and implications of my argument.

The work of Félix Acuto encourages archaeologists to compromise more strongly when it comes to the praxis towards, with and for the Indigenous people. Understanding archaeology as a practice oriented by the political stance of decolonization, Acuto’s work promotes making it available – through its knowledge, methods and techniques – as a dedication in time and experience to the projects and struggles of Indigenous people in Latin America. The goal is to contribute to the double decolonization that these populations are undergoing, via their shedding of what has been imposed on them by Western society and by the relationship that the state establishes with them – that is to say, arguing that interculturality is the way.

Acuto’s manuscript is a gateway to understanding what could be called ‘Indigenous Latin American Archaeology’ (or ‘Indigenous Archaeology in Latin America’). This manuscript summarizes several arguments that have shaped the theoretical panorama of Latin American Indigenous archaeology in recent decades. The first argument is of a historical order. Clearly, the construction of national identities in Latin America that began in the 19th century after the wars of independence set forward a programmatic agenda concerning the question of the region’s Indigenous populations. The core of this agenda was to eradicate Indigenous populations so that the territories could be populated with modern citizens. So once the new Latin American republics were recognized, the project of clearing what would represent the Indigenous background was undertaken.