382 Paul A. Kruger few general remarks on the nature of the mundus inversus topos and after that attempt to indicate how this background could possibly assist us in making sense of the obscure saying in Jer 31,22b. 1. The topos of the mundus inversus The phenomenon of reversal (mundus inversus) is widespread in the literatures and cultures of the world and it has long been a topic of interest for anthropologists and sociologists alike (16). Symbolic inversion (mundus inversus) refers to a place where everything is reversed in relation to the normal state of affairs. Babcock presents the following anthropological characterisation: “Symbolic inversion may be broadly defined as any act of expressive behavior which inverts, contradicts, abrogates, or in some fashion presents an alternative to commonly held cultural codes, values, and norms, be they linguistic, literary or artistic, religious, or social and political” (17). The oldest manifestations of this topos go back to the cultures of the ancient Near East (18). According to Babcock’s definition above, the idea of symbolic inversion presents itself in different forms and cultural contexts. One of its earliest origins could be traced back to cultic-religious or quasi-carnival celebrations, where traditional codes of social conduct are reversed or suspended for a given time (19). In Sumerian literature a classic example in this respect would be the dedication festivities of the Eninnu temple (Gudea Cylinder B), where it is (16) Cf. e.g., BABCOCK, The Reversible World; S. LURIA, “Die Ersten werden die Letzten sein”, Klio XXII (1929) 405-431 and H. JEBENS, “Verkehrte Welt”, Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe (eds. H. CANCIK, et al.) (Stuttgart 2000) V, 323- 327. (17) BABCOCK, The Reversible World, 14. (18) H. KENNER, Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Klagenfurt 1970); M. MALUL, Knowledge, Control and Sex. Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview (Tel Aviv 2002) 478-480. One such important manifestation of this principle relates to the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean ethnographical domains, where certain groups constructed their perceptions of “other” groups through the strategy of “symbolic inversion”. In this respect something similar happened to what F. KRAMER, Verkehrte Welten. Zur imaginären Ethnographie des 19. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt 21981) 7, observes in a much later time: “Die Ethnographie des 19. Jahrhundert entwirft im Hinblick auf die ‘eigene’ Kultur die ‘fremde’ als verkehrte Welt”. For a selection of ancient Near Eastern examples illustrating this “inverted” nature of the culture of other peoples, cf. P.A. KRUGER, “The World ‘Topsy-Turvy’ and the Ancient Near Eastern Cultures: A Few Examples”, Anthropology Southern Africa 29 (2006) 115-121; see also B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, “The Other and the Enemy in the Mesopotamian Conception of the World”, Mythology and Mythologies (ed. R.M. WHITING) (Helsinki 2001) 195-231 and Y. COHEN, “The Image of the ‘Other’ and Hittite Historiography”, Historiography in the Cuneiform World (ed. T. ABUSCH) (RAI XLVe; Bethesda 2001) 113-129 (with literature). For later examples of the same strategy by Herodotus and Tacitus, cf. F. HARTOG, The Mirror of Herodotus (Berkeley 1988) and R. BLOCH, Antike Vorstellungen vom Judentum. Der Judenexkurs des Tacitus im Rahmen der Griechisch-Römischen Ethnographie (Stuttgart 2002). (19) LURIA, “Die Ersten werden die Letzten sein”; see also J. ASSMANN, “Königsdogma und Heilserwartung. Politische und kultische Chaosbeschreibungen in ägyptischen Texten”, Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. HELLHOLM) (Tübingen 1983) 345-377; S. DÖPP (hrsg.), Karnevaleske Phänomene in antiken und nachantiken Kulturen und Literaturen (Trier 1993).