312 Kevin McGeough contexts did derive from the visual similarities of the equipment. What specifically was that birth equipment? The better attested Mesopotamian and Egyptian birthing practices suggest possible candidates for the ’obnayim. 4. Birthing Practices in Cuneiform Traditions Mesopotamian childbirth practices have been well reconstructed already by Stol, so there is no need to go into these practices in depth here (14). Germane to this discussion, however, are Stol’s comments about the brick of birth, which is well attested in cuneiform traditions. Beyond the cuneiform sources already discussed above, Stol demonstrates that birth bricks are attested in a hemerology, a Neo- Assyrian letter, and in a Sumerian personal name. Stol connects these references explicitly to the passage from Exodus in question. Stol further demonstrates a possible connection between the Biblical passage and Hittite and Ugaritic traditions. This evidence is not as strong, as in neither situation is it possible to argue definitively that the equipment in question is a brick as opposed to a stool. Stol (following de Moor) identifies a possible birth brick in Ugaritic literature, specifically in KTU 1.12 I 14-27. Stol connects this observation with the Exodus passage. If this reading of the text is correct (although problematically, the term in question, ’ugrm, is also a hapax, usually translated as field or soil), then the Ugaritic text should be understood as a command to take various birthing equipment and give birth. Beckman has argued that Hittite texts attest that the laboring woman gave birth while seated on a stool, with texts that specifically describe the stool and a professional name that translates as “woman of the birth stool” (15). These texts demonstrate the prevalence of squatting birth practices outside of Mesopotamia proper. In and of themselves, however, they do not specifically prove that the ’obnayim were birth bricks, but certainly suggest that some kind of equipment to support the woman in an upright position should (14) M. STOL, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible. Its Mediterranean Setting (Cuneiform Monographs 14; Groningen 2000) 119-122. The Ugaritic text can be found in M. DIETRICH – O. LORETZ – J. SANMARTIN, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts From Ugarit , Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (Münster 1995). For other interpretations of `ugrm, see the entry in G. DEL OLMO LETE – J. SANMARTÍN, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (Leiden 2004) 27. 2 (15) G. BECKMAN, Hittite Birth Rituals (Wiesbaden 1983) 102.