The Pharmacopoeial Handbook Šammu šikinšu - An Edition
Henry Stadhouders - Utrecht University
So es elc cruud ghenaturt
ende ghescepen ende ghefigurt
want hier in onse menscelichede
dar onse lijf geset es mede
moeten elementen sijn ghemanc
jofte onse lijf ware thant verganc.1
Introduction
The edition offered here of a core text in the medical corpus grew out of a contribution I was
happy to make to the Corpus of Ancient Mesopotamian Scholarship Project (CAMS)
currently in steady progress with E. Robson at its helm.2 When the editors of the journal in
hand learned of my dealings with the Šammu šikinšu materials, they kindly invited me to
publish the results in the present issue, which I have done with great pleasure.3
How the treatise on medicinal plants and drugs Šammu šikinšu would have looked like as a
fixed series cannot be reconstructed with any certainty at the present state of our knowledge.4
Positive proof that at some point of time it came to be transmitted in series format can be
inferred from the subscription preserved on tablet A which labels it as the n-th tablet of
Šammu šikinšu. Unfortunately, this is the single Šammu šikinšu manuscript that may arguably
be considered a series tablet,5 as no scribal notes of the kind are extant in any of the other
1
Jacob van Maerlant, Der naturen bloeme (Damme, ± 1271), ed. M. Gysseling, http://www.dbnl.org), ll. 1416414169: ‘So every herb has got its nature and shape and figure, for here with our humanity our body is bound up
with elements need to be admixed, or else our body were to perish soon.’
2
Namely providing the contents for an online edition of STT 93; URL: http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams.
3
In addition I am greatly indebted to Annie Attia and Gilles Buisson for their detailed advises and suggestions
put forward with scholarly prudence and quite a few of which have proven instrumental in establishing the text
of the compositions presented here. Also, their keen eyes signalized some serious flaws to be remedied.
I am no less pleased to express my gratitude to Mark Geller for his unrelenting willingness to discuss with me
these texts thoroughly and in a systematic manner and for sharing with me his expert insights unreservedly.
4
B. B ck, in: Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, p. 694.
Basics of Šammu šikinšu and its cognates can be learned through M. Stol, art. “Pflanzenkunde,” in: RlA, Bd. 10
(2005), pp. 503-506, esp. 4. Medizinale Kräuter, b. A succinct overview by B. Böck describing the
‘Pharmakologische Texte’ has since appeared in: Texte zur Heilkunde, pp. 163-165.
When this article had already entered the editorial process, a master thesis attempting the same job as the one
reported on here was brought to my notice by M.Geller: M. Schreiber, Die Tafelserie šammu šikinšu und ihre
Bedeutung für die Erforschung der altorientalischen Pflanzenheilkunde, MA Hausarbeit, Philosophische
Fakultät der westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Münster 2011. Since it has not been released for public use in
any form, it was decided as a matter of principle to ignore it completely, which, I would like to stress, should in
no way be taken for a token of disapproval.
5
Provided that one is willing to accept the way the subscript line is restored, see Text I, l. 113 below. The
subscript provides, if nothing else, proof of there having been circulating a composition by the name of Šammu
šikinšu, in corroboration of the Exorcist’s Manual which concludes its first catalogue of iškaru titles -largely to
be understood as compositions rather than fixed series- with a line (l.26) mentioning Šammu šikinšu in
conjunction with Abnu šikinšu, ṭupp -abn ti, and ṭupp -šamm . An updated edition of the Exorcist’s Manual has
been published by M. Geller, “Incipits and Rubrics,” in: Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in
Honour of W.G. Lambert, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000, pp. 225-258; re-edited with some supplementary
materials by C. Jean, La magie néo-assyrienne en contexte [SAAS 17], Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2006,
pp. 62-82.
manuscripts, either as a result of damage or just because they have never been there (as
exemplified by B). However, should it be supposed that the major text pieces B and C do
somehow reflect series tablets, too, it would follow that the series as a whole must have
comprised three tablets at the least, mirrored in A, B, and C respectively, since the three of
them are mutually exclusive, in so far as no two of them can feasibly be considered
complementary parts of the same series tablet filling each other’s gaps. Neither can they be
believed, on the other hand, to be jointly representing a fixed series, for the obvious reason
that there is too much overlap between them. So long as some new piece of evidence has not
surfaced to enlighten us on this issue, it would therefore seem wiser to designate the text units
that can be outlined with the neutral sigla Text I, II, and III. Whether the minor Šammu
šikinšu fragments do or do not belong textually in the gaps left in these main representatives is
beyond determining, which is why they are referred to in the same fashion.
As a vehicle of pharmacopoeial lore Šammu šikinšu is closely akin to the so-called
Therapeutic Vademecum on the one hand and the major medicinal plant list Irianna on the
other, so much so that quite a degree of cross-pollination can be observed among them.
Consequently, the three manuals should be assumed to be related not just generically but also
genetically. The story of their interrelationships cannot be told yet, though, neither can that of
how they evolved individually over time. From a purely descriptive viewpoint, however,
Šammu šikinšu may be said to operate on the interface between Irianna and Therapeutic
Vademecum, articulating through its more narrative style the verbless juxtapositions of the
former and the jerky staccato of the latter. The first part of its every section -up to and
phrase- thus reflects the binary scheme of Irianna sections in that
including the pivotal
one plant is being compared to another or, the more usual thing to be observed in both, a
number of others. Whereas Irianna, basically a coarse list that rarely goes beyond the implicit,
will be tacit as to nature, degree and respect of similarity, Šammu šikinšu will normally state
in which specific regard the plant forming the section’s topic resembles any of those it
adduces for comparison. By thus bringing the tertium comparationis into play it explicates
that any similarity between plants is a partial and limited thing always and that no two plants
share all of their properties. A salient feature proper to Šammu šikinšu and a shibboleth apt to
serve for its generic identification, is the combined use of the
and
formulae.
Starting with the
formula Šammu šikinšu sections run for their latter half neatly parallel
to the mature Therapeutic Vademecum,6 faithfully mirroring its ternary pattern of plant name,
the disease it should cure, and an instruction how to process and administer it. Both manuals
are near twins the way they have their prescriptions structured, but that Šammu šikinšu has the
verb in the present tense throughout, whereas the Therapeutic Vademecum will normally use
the infinitive mood. Unlike the Therapeutic Vademecum, Šammu šikinšu shows a tendency to
digress on the disease’s cause by attributing it to a deity’s avatar of ill will through the phrase
.7 Their kinship is further demonstrated by the circumstance that joint copies of
these two handbooks have been identified among the textual artifacts.8
6
The two-columns version of this manual is disregarded here.
A striking exception to the sketched distribution of these divergencies is extant in BAM 379, ii, 47sqq., a Late
Babylonian exemplar of the Therapeutic Vademecum which has its prescriptive verbs in the present tense to the
near exclusion of the infinitive mood, and which will elaborate the diseases’ origins as frequently as Šammu
šikinšu would and in the very same terms; in addition, the
formula occasionally pops up in it as well.
There is a good chance, so it seems, that it merely represents a Late Babylonian idiosyncrasy. See Appendix 1.A.
8
As yet two such tablets are known: manuscripts B and E of the present edition, whose Šammu šikinšu portions
are duplicates constituting Text II. As they happen to be both Late Babylonian exemplars the named concurrence
might be an invention of younger date.
7
The following scholarly known manuscripts underlie the present edition of Šammu šikinšu:
A = STT 93;
B = BAM 379, i, 1’-ii, 46’;
C = KADP 33;
D = CTN IV, 195 + 196, ii, 12’ sqq. and rev. (= col. iii); a fresh hand-copy of the right-hand
fragment is provided in Appendix 3 below;9
E = SpTU III, 106, obv.;
F = BAM 327;
G = YBC 7114;10
Ha = KADP 34a; Hb = KADP 34b;
J = KADP 35.
For reference purposes Text sections have been numbered § 1, 2, ...; section lines are counted
(1), (2), ..., put before the romanised text-line.
9
My thanks are due to M. Geller for checking the CTN IV hand-copy of ND 5497/13 (by A. Millard) against the
physical artifact in the British Museum, paving the way for me to complete the collating work and create a new
copy for this edtion.
10
G. Beckman and B. Foster, “Assyrian Scholarly Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection,” in: A Scientific
Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia 1988, p. 7, nr. 4.
Text I
Text I is well-nigh exclusively known from A, so these two sigla are virtually co-referential.
Among Šammu šikinšu text witnesses A is the best preserved of all. Any duplications and
parallels that exist have been relegated to the footnotes; the most important ones have been
incorporated into the score text edition of Text II. As the work on this exemplar went on, it
became only too obvious that Gurney’s hand-copy needs collating in many places. While an
inspection of the physical artifact has been out of my reach so far, I was luckily given access
to the Sultantepe excavation photos database.11 Regrettably, these proved not as helpful as one
would have wished, so that the most vexing of puzzles had to remain. What scanty corrections
to the hand-copy could be achieved are high-lighted by the * marker.
Transliteration
§1
1.
!
'()
2.
*
§2
3.
.
&
+ $
, -
= (2)
$$
.
1
2/
1
//%
4 /&
1
5 66&/
5. '
9 !
= (3)
$ %5
6. '!
()
"
7252/
14
/ 8
'!
12
'0
0
/&
13
//
4.
/0
'
= (1)
= (2)
#
"
$%
= (1)
#
3
%/
&
!:
8 ,8 , 6
+ $
%
$ !
;
6 ,
!:
<
= (4) , $=
, -
$$
%
- - - /%$
8 ,8 , 6
% 1&
,
§3
7.
: ! ?
1
= (1)
%@
'
8.
= (2) 4 /&
1
4 /
7 6
§4
9.
10.
D
8
= (1)
E F
15
!
?E
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (2)
//
$%
>
B
6C
,2
--%/ 7
*
//%
#
&
#
'$ '
1
#
A
%/
#
/ $$
> 66 <
!
&
&,2
()
+ $
<
$$
> 66 <
, -
11.
= (3)
,,
11
I am grateful to Eleanor Robson for granting me this privilege.
While the hand-copy leaves no doubt about the sign’s identity, the photo might rather point to
13
!
Perhaps to be read
; cf. l. 57’.
14
*
Copy seems to have G or # ##
; not warranted by photo, which might have
.
15
Traces suggest either ... ! 3 u (cf. l. 85’ below), or ...
.
12
.
!
"
§5
12.
''
16
$ 5 6H 2
1
= (1)
$ 56
#
8
-- / 7
''
!E
D
13. Ú BI [Ú x x x MU.NI ŠU.B]I.DIL.ÀM
&
= (2)
>
6C
§6
14.
' #
I (1)
1
&
§7
15.
G
1
= (1)
16.
/% ,&
#
!E
&
= (2)
17. ?E
'
!
#'
()
8 88 /
6
>>
$%5
8
<
$$
G
$
/ $$
## 9 5 !
,
+ $
, -
§8
18. ' '
7
*
#
= (3) , >> 6 , $=
'D ! ?
7 // %
8 6%6
0
8 6%6
F17
7 / /
0
> 66 <
'G
!
# ##
J
:
/%,&
= (1)
!
§9
21.
?E
62> 0
/%
!
'
G
/%,&
'
''
+ $
/%,
018
' !
8 88
§ 10
24.
# .
0
0
$$
!
> 66 <
1
?E
> > 616 $%
!
*
"
#
&
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
'
!
1
= (1)
<'
>
/ / ,K
= (3)
%@ 7 6
> 6 6 !
!
23.
>
E2
77 6 6
()
, -
1
&
= (2)
1
G
= (1)
22.
>
:
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (3)
-27
"
&
20. F
16
/%, 7 /> ,
0
= (2)
25.
1
#'
19.
'
A
/ / ,K ,
,,
<
> 66 <
> 6L 6 ,
J
7 /> ,
1
0
19
E F
> 6 6,
!!
?E
!
()
' ''
' B'* I
6 >> ?
Cf. Text II, § 2’: G
7 / / F ; and see l. 46’ below.
18
Cf. STT 92, iii, 4’-5’ and l. 86’ below. Alternatively, 6 M 4 N4 may be suggested as an attribute qualifying ,
if there is an attribute to be assumed here in the first place. An unqualified
could also be taken for D I - ,
‘carbuncle’. In that case, however, we would expect a bandage to be prescribed in the recipe rather than a potion.
19
Photo shows O? P rather than O P of hand-copy, so the second x might be actually '?.;
QR SQ-T looks on
photo quite like the
of l. 3 (second-last sign), which might be rather . So, to propose *
'?. I - 8
‘dystocia’ seems a favourable case to defend; cf. KADP 1, v, 8.12: two Therapeutic Vademecum instances of an
?, to be read
- 8 . The Nippur commentary on midwifery magic 11N-T3 (Cow-of-Sîn mainly;
to be performed no doubt by a male >$U impersonating Asarlu5i-Marduk: BAM 248, iv, 3) would lend support
to the argument:
$6 / 5
F V6 / 5V8
, , see M. Civil, “Medical
Commentaries from Nippur,” (JNES 33 [1974], 329-338), p. 332, ll. 26-27. On the other hand, the broken
17
&0 > 6 ,
= (2)
8%,
26. +
'!
/
- ,
= (3) , -,
/ / ,K 6% - ,%
§ 11
27.
!
1
= (1)
28.
= (2)
31. ?E
8
33.
= (2)
§ 14
34. ' '
!
?E
> //
!(
Y7 / > ,
!
-
,2 '
0
> % %,2
22
(
8 , >> 6 , $=
'
0
6
0
/%
6&
'
'
#
&
6 '
!
/ / ,K ,
,,
> 66 <
F
*21
W
28 6
,
,
55 7 6% - ,%
F0 > ' 0
J
#
"
&
/ / ,K ,
7
/ / ,K ,
!
X 1
= (1)
6 >>
!
Y
?E
4 /&
!
!
6 -K $%
8 , >> 6 6&
4> /
4>
-
X
1
'$ !
B
B
= (3) , >> 6 , $=
§ 13
32.
2>>% 4 /
'
// 8%
!
'(0
0
J
7 /> ,
!
> 66 <
20
!
1
/' / 8
<
2> >
18 - /%$
'
M N
,,
8
286
= (1)
= (2)
G
' '
§ 12
29.
30.
,
7 /> , /%,&
J
/>%
J
8 , >> 6 , $=
'
''
3
,
,,
'
#
3
,8
> 66 <
&
? ?
23
#
6 -K , > 66 6
> //1
,
--
> 66 <
E
G
§ 15’24
35’.
36’.
37’25.
= (3)
$ B> F '
1$ 6 >>
$$
'
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
?E
/%
!
!
, 7 55 ,
5/ Z#
#
51/
61
,
-> 66 <
§ 16’
38’.
= (1)
!
1
1 K
>
<H 2
1
5 /%7 <
/K
0
26
0
F
L
#
&
sequence of signs could just as well be interpreted:
' . ' . Which demon might be hiding underneath in
that case?
20
*
Wrongly for A ?; cf. l. 68’ below;
would require more room in the lacuna than it allows for.
21
*
Or
# ?
22
()
I
Q/ (
I5
, not impossible.
23
Equally possible are
I,
[,
/ I , =/[ Q/
M
N I , M,2 N288 .
24
§ 15’ // Text III, § 11’.
25
Cf. BAM 159, v, 35-36: ... \
$ 6W> > ] F
!
5 / Z#
#
.
26
< ^
, ‘has the taste of X.’
6;* 27
39’. ,
= (2) ,
16
0
7 >
0
7%>
§ 17’
40’.
G
1
= (1)
41’.
>2
= (2)
>2
42’.
.!
/K /%,&
E F
$
!
!K
!
&
!
E F
0
# !
. ?E
+
'
G '
/K
()
+
8 , >> 6 , $=
9
'
, -,
!
"
66
*0
/K
()
8 , >> 6 , $ =
= (3)
§ 18’
43’.
725/% $%
?E
28
#
"
$
, -
'
'
$$
> 66 <
29
G
!
1
= (1)
&/ / %,&
= (2) %
45’.
= (3)
1
*
``
5 /&> 7 6
#
!
J
> //
§ 19’
46’.
8
!
= (2)
&$
;
&
1
66
1
$
*0
2 -L6
33
6
66 6
7 / /
/
>
0
``' #
34
1
>
0 36
EB
; '
- 1 - %/
37
5 /K 6
:
6
5 5&/ - 7 / / /%
5 / 6
= (1)
66
?
, 6 6,
/
&
E. B
35
1
0
> >> 6 * - % 1 0
,2 6 6 ,
§ 20’
48’. '
27
"
-
#
725/%031
?
/%,&
47’. ' '#
/%, , ,,
.30
32
G
= (1)
49’. ! ?
1
A_ ''
44’.
&
> >> 6
F L -2 8H 238 $
-28 0 $
6
#
'
J a039
4 /&
0
'
1
X ,Y <H'
40
E
See Borger, MZL, p. 382 for
I 6;; room is too restricted to have possibly contained:
F/ Z # # # .
On the assumption that
does indeed follow, the name of a part of the plant must be restored, such as
or ! ? , and so must be done in the next line.
29
To be corrected into ? ? * ?
30
# according to hand-copy; the photo, however, shows just one final vertical, suggesting
or '
.
31
A subject XG
Y may have been left out, unless we should read
I 1/% &
32
Copy:
; photo has unmistakably E; it must have been miscopied as
inadvertently.
33
An exceptional case of the prescription being patterned after the Therapeutic Vademecum, using the infinitive
mood instead of the present tense; see Text II, § 24’ for what the normal thing would have looked like.
For the phrase ina & > >> 6
6 + infinitive see KADP 1, v, 18.19.23.24.27-30.31; BAM 1, i, 17, all of them
being Therapeutic Vademecum (which by contrast may sometimes abandon its predilected infinitive mood for
the present tense, e.g. BAM 1, iii, 21).
34
Corruption of ?; cf. Text II, § 2, 1: G
7 // F b
35
Or rather , 2* ?
36
Restoration based on KADP 1, v, 29-30: MJcN !
V !
D MI , 6 6, N
6 6 6 MdaN
; E
!
V
#
E
6
.
``
J
;
;
37
The copied sign does not quite look like
on photo; the preceding sign is definitely . What we would
expect here is the name of a part of the plant; the same thing would seem to be recorded in l. 51’; with much
*
may be suggested, cf. Text IIIa, § 7, 2.
hesitance 6
38
Whereas G is clearly visible on photo,
are questionable; so is the ! following, which may be actually 9 ,
yielding 4
, possibly for 4 ee ‘is adorned with.’ Can plants have ears -G I
- of some sort?
28
/ $$
= (2)
0
/ /
50’. F
/
/
= (3)
§ 21’
51’.
'
2- 6
!
&
?E
()
8 , >> 6 , $=
41
''
6
#
/
53’. ?E
/
!
/
= (4)
55’.
= (5) -%
0
42
,
@ ! ?
@
*0
0
> 66 <
$
1
7 > , 6 >>
!
/
$$
0
! ?
0
]
/
# B!
@
= (3) , >> 6 , $=
54’.
! ?
/ $$
' '@
&
= (2)
+ $
, -
F' L '
= (1)
52’.
1, <
!
- ,
Z
55 7 6% - ,%
.
8
?
,
,,
62 2*43 ?E
!
5 66 6 , >> 6 , $=
$
# !
6=
()
8
? B ? ?
&/ , > 66 6
E*0
$
0
, 7
§ 22’
56’. '
/
> 66 <
@ G
X
Y
@ ! ? !$
/
1
= (1)
57’.
/
= (2) 1
/ @
725/%
J
1
? #
2//K
1
4 / 5 /%,
Y
/
' #
@
?
/ $$
62 2
45
& 5 66 6
D 9
-% 8 88 / 66
\
= (2) -2,= 4 /&
X 1
' E'44 F L
72552/ <
= (1)
39
@ /%,&
<H 2
§ 23’
58’.
59’.
/
@
/ $$
/
J
/&/
1
? #! ?
$
/ >
8
/%,&
G
1
' /f >
&
0
#
5 /6
Proposal courtesy A. Attia & G. Buisson, not contradicted by photo, although the lacuna is on the spacious
side for it.
40
Alternatively 62
I 2
, ‘Evil One’ would make perfect sense; the
would be a rare
orthography to be practised in a late text like this, though Equally meaningful but still less likely is 62
`"
I 62
% / , ‘evil wind.P
41
See l. 48’ above.
42
Or rather
!( b !( short for !( 7 I ,
55 7 (see ll. 31 and 100’)?
43
Copy has
J; in view of l. 57’, and since 5 66 286 would seem to be meaningless
J has been
emended into 2*.
44
*
'
I8 U?
J' E Q/ '
J'
45
An instructive section dealing with the / @ ] plant is contained in the Therapeutical Vadecum exemplar
STT 92, iii, 24’-27’. Unlike its other occurrences this one is not on record in the dictionaries s.v. / @ . It
reads as follows: MJ;PN ! ?
/
@
6
B
Z ' '# ! MJ"PN `
!
()
*
*
? B ? ?
6
E
<
X
Y
!
#
4
MJAPN
(
A
# ## >
6
,2
! MJ3PN
!
;@ >
I /
/ @K 6 286
$
6=
8 ,
, $=
&/ , > 66 6 , > 6 $
, 7
> 66 < X
Y
6 $
4 /1
44 4 6% > 66 < -% $
5
, , -,
@ 77
> 6 > @ >K ,
, $=
55 , ,2 288
66 :
‘Root of šarnagu and field’s-rush, they are effective against every kind of ulcer; you pound them together, mix
them with oil and wax, you heat up (the mixture), put it as a bandage on the sore spot and he will be cured. <If>,
however, the ulcer remains in the man’s body and he fails to recover, you rub the sore spot repeatedly with ghee,
pound together burnt gypsum and pumice, smear (the mixture) on, then he will get well.’
The remarkable plene writing
@ might point to a folk-etymology trying to explain the name as ‘king of the
district.’
60’.
24 4
= (3)
244
'
E
Z*
$
/!
?E
!
()
+
, -
$$
8 , >> 6 , $=
61’.
= (4)
F
1
6=
§ 24’46
62’. '
# ' '!
!
()
8 , $=
' D ' '9
= (1)
1
§ 25’
63’.
'
+ $
<
$$
> 66 <
'D' $ /
,
, -
F!
/ &/
J
8 / 1
47
71$$ /
? #
#
=,
'
$
&
5 /6
' 'G
!
1
= (1)
64’.
5
= (2)
5
65’.
= (3)
2//K
-% 8 88 / 66
48
,2
!
/%,&
, 29 !
3
$%5
$ , 5 $
/ / ,K >
1
67’.
# '
8
-%
J
66
§ 26’
68’.
$
$-
2$ '6 !
> // 2$6
> 66 <
'F/'0
Z*0 # # #
!
()
8 , >> 6 , $= ,,
> //1 , ,
69’.
= (2)
§ 27’
70’.
= (1)
46
1
> 66 <
*51
A
/%,&
54
/ -%
>
0
9 !
$%5
7 6
%/
0
52
53
0
8
&
6&
0
0
8 ,
/%
0
0
D'*0
7
0
#
&
!
0
]
725 52/]/%
/&/ /
6
;
? ?
, > 66 6
D 9
= (1)
0
0
?E
G
&
$$
\
-2,= gg /0
' #
, 6, -- ,
G
? #'
& 2//U
= (5)
$%
+
, 6, -- ,
'
/%,&
>
, -
()
6
J
= (4)
/K
()
49
A. E
'
50
66’.
1
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
'!
/8&$$ , 5 $$
?E
"
6 '
7 5, 6&
6
4 > 6&
/%
,,
#
&
Cf. Text II, § 14.
The ‘radiance of horns/cusps’ to which the reddish offshoots are compared is to be interpreted as the astral
phenomenon, CAD, Q, p. 137f., s.v. 8 / , 3. ‘horn, cusp of the moon and other celestial bodies;’ esp. d),
quoting a commentary that associates ! V 8 / V /&/ . This is corroborated by BRM IV, 32, 7:
Ja
F / / ^h M F
Ja
N; associating the plant with the ‘radiance of Venus’ this
commentary bears out the astral import of the comparison. [This famous commentary has recently been re-edited
by M. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine, Appendix pp. 168ff.; F / / ^h there rendered ‘lunar radiance.’]
48
Traces do not suggest , /
; there exists a pair of plants ending in
V !G
and
\ I , /
, KADP 36, vi, 8-9; see Text V, § 5, 3’ below. Theoretically any of the medicinal plants of
Hurrite (?) origin ending in 5 , such as 5 > 66 /5 [
/5 [ $ @ 66 5 cannot be excluded.
49
Reading A warranted by traces on photo.
50
X Y I 8 88 / to be inserted?
51
Copy looks like
.
52
The
seems rather misplaced.
53
Can this
somehow be reflecting 5 %> ‘to grow abundantly, to be radiant’?
54
Traces look compatible with
'9 ' B I 5 1- 6 >> .
47
B 9
71’.
' !
C 4 @
= (2)
!
8
/
/
,K
§ 28’
72’.
>
= (1)
§ 29’
73’.
/ # ##
1
= (1)
/ -27
#
74’.
&
= (2)
!
75’.
?E
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (3)
G
§ 30’
76’.
77’.
78’.
#
()
!
E +
/& , , -
= (3)
§ 31’55
79’.
?
= (1)
80’.
'
= (2)
5 51
$
$$
?
$L5
1
5 5&/
$0 8
/ > 757
<
> 66 <
##
$ 5 ,=
,
#
E
/ 8%
--%/
56
?
D
&6 % >
#
' /
6
U
- -H 2
#
81’.
= (3)
``
$8&
/ >7
58
#
> //
1
9 !
$%5
?E
$
§ 34’
85’.
55
()
-%
()
+
!
$$
'D
7
$
> 66 <
#
&
$$
'D
3
',2
/ -- 5
8 6%6
$
, -
5 66&/ / 8
59
+
, -,
8 , >> 6 , $=
1
/ 7
' '
!
§ 33’
84’.
= (1)
' !
9 !
= (1)
= (2)
?E
8 6%6
8 , > > 6 , $=
§ 32’
82’.
83’.
!
&
-%
> 66 <
#
7
!
&
3
* 60
A
! ?
Restorations based on // Text II, § 19; cf. BRM IV, 32, 18.
Text II, § 19, 1-2 (B):
/
' '
I
/
& - .
57
For this type of feature see KADP 2, v, 36-46, edited below Appendix 1.B.
58
Text II, § 19, 4 (B):
I
-1
$%5 .
`` 9 ' '5
59
The reference to this line CAD, A-II, 453, 8 6%6
2/
.
6%6 3b wrongly reads
60
not
discernable
on
photo.
The
vertical
wedge
might
reflect
a
rudimentary
X
Y
.
A
56
<7 ,
<
-%
7
1
= (1)
& ,2
#
86’.
'
&
= (2)
87’. ' '. '
'. !
,2 f 6
§ 35’62
88’.
7 ,2
' '
= (1)
89’.
#
&
$%5
!
= (2)
$ @
5 5%
!
##
94’.
= (3)
, 2 2ee2
.
,
1
!
6
.'
-,
6 , /
6 %
$$ 5
6 , /
$
/ $$
> 66 <
'
> 66 <
68
K
G
1
$
$
65
'
! ?
64
. + .
' #
+
-,
6>
9
,2>>
&
*
!
V 67
> 66 <
,2> >
5 /
!
$
/%,&
725/%
D'69
-. - -- -
%
0
7
- ,
6% - ,%
= (1)
61
1
8
&
' '
##
,= ,
8
70
.
§ 38’
95’.
96’.
>>
!
3
# 6
8 , >> 6 , $=
, $$
$2 2'
§ 37’66
92’.
= (2)
$%5
5
'
, 4 /&
+ $
61
?" G
,
>>
1
(' )
, $=
6 %5 /%,&
# #
, 2 ' H e2 '2*
6 /
!
!
E
6 6
= (1)
$
D' '
6 6
91’.
!
6
4
$ @
1
= (1)
/
3
/
?E
4
8 /8&$$
16%
§ 36’
90’. ' '
93’.
9 !
7 ,2 9 !
63
''
= (2)
/ 8 7 6
8 6%6
7 ,2 6
= (3)
>
'!
,
,,
> 66 <
'0 ' #
E
& /
;
EB
71
E
66
'
Cf. Text IV, § 7’: M`N
9B ?
!
#
MJN
6 ' 7 ,2 9 5 !
.
This section is duplicated by Text II, § 23’.
63
On account of the duplicate’s reading
6
(Text II, § 23’, 2) the reference to this locus CAD, -III, p.
147, s.v. 4>%
4>% 2 is to be cancelled.
64
The reading of the final signs is based on the photo; it is corroborated by the next section (l. 91’) and Text II, §
23’, 3, which has:
!
.
65
Were it not for the
!
referred to in the preceding footnote, it might be considered to restore:
! *
!
E
I
-,
6 , @ 66 > , 7
> 66 < .
66
This section duplicates Text II, § 20, with a number of deviations.
A related Therapeutic Vademecum section is BAM 379, iv, 3-5 (Appendix 1.A below): MdN
3
/ D
/
,
M;N
@ 77
F H2
/
f > (at first miscopied by the
scribe as f $f and then corrected by an erasure) ! " M"N !
(
+ $ . Cf. CT 14, 38, 4’-5’: (4’) @ 7
7
MI
F H 2N M"PN
/
f> .
67
For
I 6Q$$2 2 6 cf. Text III, § 7, 1; duplicate Text II, § 20, 1 (E, 19) has
with the same meaning.
By inserting a dividing line behind this MIN, however, the other duplicate (B) has altered its meaning into ‘the
same (applies as in the preceding section).’
68
Reasonably to be restored
# ! ; on the photo the breach is wider than the hand-copy would indicate,
allowing room for three to four signs.
69
On the photo the sign immediately after the break looks like ? #, followed by
or
; how to read? The
last discernable sign looks rather like .
70
Hand-copy has to be corrected.
71
The
suggested by the hand-copy can by no means be discerned on the photo; it gains strong support,
however, from the Therapeutic Vademecum parallels cited in discussing l. 45’ above.
62
I MJN
&
§ 39’
97’.
> >> 6
6
,
,,
> 66 <
V '
K
!
98’.
1
?E
§ 40’
99’.
J
1
100’.
!
= (2)
// 8%
$
.!
! ?
B
3
$%5
&
,288 ], 4 // , 7
D
#
!
2826 2-2/ 7
.9 5 !
3
62>
E $
$
= (1)
4 >> ,
!
8 , >> 6 , $= -% $
= (2)
' ' #
"
1
= (1)
8
72
:
/
7
- ,
5 67 ,
55 7 6% - ,%
§ 41’
101’.
??
1
= (1)
##
102.’
4 /
73
!
iE
1
!
5 /,
!
$%
&
()
?
@ >> >
8 , >> 6 , $=
, -,
5
??
X Y
#
"
/
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
7 5, 6% - ,% ,
/%
§ 42’
103’.
,,
! ?E
- ,
!
= (2)
> 66 <
& $ @@ 6
( 5 6 7 !(
-
$$
??
<H 2
F L
1
= (1)
5 / , 4 /&X Y 1
104’.
?E
= (2)
, >> 6 , $=
*
105’. 6
= (3) 6&
/%
!
5 /,
!
/ / ,K
,,
> 66 <
5
!
8
> 66 <
.?
1
&
?
,,
#
!
6&
§ 43’
106’.
= (1)
6K
- ,
/ / ,K 6% - ,%
6
<
,,
J
6>%
! ?
2826 2-2 /
'D
#
?
/ e* >
7
&
?
8%,
/ e1 >
107’.
E F
!
§ 44’
108’.
= (1)
72
?E
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (2)
"
1
/%
()
+ $
, -
G
62> /%,&
$$
> 66 <
V*
/
?
- 2,=
- % 8 88 / 66
V M 66 N %
#
]8
&
Serious doubts are prompted by the photo about the hand-copy’s
D (cf. l.106’); also a
J! ?
small horizontal appears before #
73
is unmistakably there on the photo; what comes next is worn off and next to illegible. On the
assumption that the hand-copy is reliable the present reading follows a lucid proposal by A. Attia & G. Buisson,
who would wish to bring KADP 1, v, 18: + # #
to bear upon the matter; the nature of this ill condition is
borne out by CT 14, Pl. 38, K. 14081, 6’: '
##
/ - -2 2. At any rate,
EI
is inadmissable,
since it ought to be followed by F
and preceded by the name of a particular disease; neither of these
requirements is met in this case.
/ U] /
!
109’.
?E
!
/
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (2)
2
/
A
2
E
/ > 6 $
88
E
, 7
> 66 <
§ 45’
110’.
$
74
1
E
?E
!
?
5
*
$%
5
<7 ,
+ $
, -
"
#
&
()
'!
>
#
"
72552/ $%
8 , >> 6 , $=
?
= (1)
62>
!
!K
§ 46’
112’.
! >$S/ -,
113’.
#
/%
E 'F
111’.
= (2)
!
"
1
= (1)
$$
' #
> 66 <
6 6
& 6 66U
/
/ U,
,
!
*
8
75
74
To be restored
?; if so, it would be meant to stand for 5 < 7 , .
Traces on photo are more compatible with
E than
'
be there in addition.
75
0
of hand-copy; a very faint '
might
Text II
This text is constituted by B and its duplicates D and E, with a few sections duplicated on A
(prime witness for Text I) and C (prime witness for Text III). The format of B has here been
chosen as a matrix for editing Text II. B as well as A and C have their individual sections
consistently separated by rulings in between, whereas D and E omit this lay-out.
Transliteration
§1
D ii 12’a. '
//
1
= (1)
&
§2
D ii 13’.
$ / 6W> > !
//
9
'
& / 6 >>
:
G
7 //
"
!
8 , $=
F 7
,76 f '
8
1
= (1)
- /e
%@
/%,&
,,
7 // % 7 %
,0
8
> // 0
D ii 14’.
.
;
5 >
77
!
/
;
*78
, /
>
E
5 >
= (2)
§3
B i 1’.
D ii 15’a.
= (2)
§4
B i 3’.
D ii 16’a.
/
/ , / >>
, 7
' 8 6. 8 6. 6
1
= (1)
B i 2’.
D ii 15’b.
/< >
B!
8 68 66%
!
5 - /%$ 79
"
!
8 , $=
,,
9 !
'
(
. XX YY
9 !
= (1)
B i 4’.
D ii 16’b-17’.
76
1
/ /
4 /&
]
'
1
#
4 /
$
!
*
7
Tablet has definitely ; as for the deviant orthography CT 14, Pl. 38, K. 14081, 6’: '
##
/ - -2
2 may be adduced for comparison, unless an idiosyncratic pseudo-sumerogram
is the thing envisaged. Or
are we to emend and read:
7*I
71 ‘calves’? A symptom pointing to the calves’ condition is the thing to be
expected next, of course, like in § 4 below; also, D 17’ writes
7 . The theme of the sections before and
after being intestinal troubles would appear to be in favour of the reading here proposed.
77
[ ... šum4-m]a ( ... ) šum4-ma ( ... ) proposal courtesy A. Attia & G. Buisson.
78
Tablet has # rather than
79
A case in point of the ‘cure to stop diarrhea,’ most noteworthy for being the only one to be presently known
from a text of medical practice; it did not make it into the dictionaries. There is another mentioning of it, which
the dictionaries do quote (s.v.
5 ; reference courtesy A. Attia & G. Buisson), in the commentary tablet (22d
V
pirsu # 6<1 #1, %> > , on
6 82/>&
,,
- 5&) BAM 401, 13-14: B !
"
5 - / $ ] B!
V
5 V B!
V 7
5 V
V
/
$
.
Cf.
M.
Civil,
“Medical
"
Commentaries from Nippur,” (JNES 33 [1974], 329-338), p. 336. A composition entitled B !
is
"
on record in the Exorcist’s Manual (see footnote 5, above), l. 18.
<
/&/
= (2)
,
,
,
5& 6 8 / %
, /,
§5
D ii 18’. ' '
*
? !'
D ii 19’.
= (2)
5
0
5
0
5 $$1 4 /&
'
0
!
/ U , $=
0
'
0
0
§6
B i 15’.
D ii 20’a.
4 / 266 - -27 /
!
$
66
?$
8 88 $$ ,2 2$$
/=
()
+
, -
$$
516
$
"
1
= (1)
B i 16’.
D ii 20’b.
1
e
26 6 ' - # ##
E
/
E
1
= (1)
F e
71
<%,
55 7 ,
/%
62>
4> /
4>
= (2) 4>%
- ,
B i 17’.
D ii 20’c.
.
= (3)
/> ,
# 2!
'
"
8
MDb
6% - , %
,, BN
§7
B i 18’.
D ii 21’a.
1
= (1)
B i 19’.
D ii 21’b.
= (2)
1 K
0
.
.
81
$
§ 882
B i 20’.
D ii 22’a.
= (2)
§9
B i 22’.
D ii 23’a.
80
4 e,
9 f!
9
!
J
J
1
= (1)
B i 21’.
D ii 22’b.
F ' '*080 '
F
.
0
9 B!
9 B!
51- 6 >>
K $%
"!
"!
8 , $=
' :
$ - 6
(
(
"
"' '
#
#
U
4 6 6
9
!
!
'
!
"
#
"
8 , $= M-BN
'
-% $
.
#
,
E
4 66U
+
, -
! G
083
*
2 6' 6 ' ! ". 26 6 -
Hand-copy strongly suggests ' ' I
; the unambiguous reading of D has here been accepted to overrule it,
even though a $
is reported to discharge ‘water,’ see next footnote.
81
Hand-copy of D would seem to be more compatible with
. However, this is an utterly rare plant
name of unknown application, quite unlike the
plant, which among its many uses happens to be on
record as a medicament to cure a fluid discharging $
: BAM 32, 5’-6’ // BAM 417, 4-5:
;
!
66
?E
9!
E$
I
$
2/e% &
66 &
, >> 6 , 5
6 , --% $
,288 , 7
$$
> 66 <.
82
Cf. BRM IV, 32, 19:
9
EV
! "V
9
EV
$$ ,
22I
4 66U V
1
U $% V 4 66U V
$$ ,
; azallû is ‘poppy’ (Papaver somniferum).
83
To emend the hand-copy into $ * - '6 would be a drastic thing to do; on the other hand, any equation or
close relationship connecting the 5 << / e K and $ -%6 plants is totally lacking from the plant lists.
E 1’.
' $ '-
[
6
= (1)
1
$ -%6 M5 << / eK0 BN 4 /
B i 23’.
D ii 23’b-24’.
E 2’.
]f
, 9 5 !
,
,
= (2)
§ 1084
B i 24’.
D ii 25’a.
E 3’.
1
B i 25’.
D ii 25’b.
E 4’.
4
M+
1
, -
$$
.
=
?"
?"
?"
?"
!
"!
(
"
8 , $=
, /
,2 /
, /'
, /
&5 , /
#*0
B
6 >>
4
0
,
0
, ' 4
'e '
"
*
H ,2
4 e
.
, 4 e
,
85
%, 4 ee
*
B i 27’.
C rev. 5’b.
D ii 26’b.
E 5’b.
.
.
86
= (2)
C rev. 6’a.
C rev. 6’b-7.
!
= (3)
> //
§ 12
B i 28’.
D ii 27’a.
E 6’a.
!
3
$
8L `
D' F0
J
1
B i 29’.
$ 56
D ii 27’b-28’. $ 5 6 '
E 6’b-7’.
= (2) $ 56=
1
:
6% 1
> //1 ,
% & 77U
K 0 , ,=/
Y
,
9B ?
!
$ 5 62 2
9B ?
M) 4 / EN $ 56
B ! !E !
B ! !E !
B ! !E !
]
]
& / 6 >>
- <
,
1
, ,=/
X
$ 56 4 /&
'
d
]
8 /8&$$ ,26288
9B ?
!
'9 B ?
9B ?
= (1)
84
+ . $
8 , $=
# !
# !
Z!
Z!
Z!
Z!
= (1)
()
(
/
§ 11
B i 26’.
C rev. 5’a.
D ii 26’a.
E 5’a.
266 -
&,
F
F
F
DN
!
,.
5
.
= (2)
§ 13
B i 30’.
$%5
5
5
5
= (1)
"
$%
"
8 , $=
"
"
!
!
'-
,
' ''
6% - ,%
,,
? !!
A closely related section is Text IV, § 4’.
This occurrence of the phrase ,2/ %, zueeunu has not received attention with CAD, T, 355, s.v. terinnu; the
pertinent lexical section does, however, mention an interesting parallel from a trilingual list: &5 88=,
,2/ %, 4 ee
,
86
How to read?; a reading < < , * would rest on shaky ground;
I -F/ ]6 5 ?; Böck, Texte zur Heilkunde, p.
167: ‘udda u-Pflanze.’
85
- <
- <*
D ii 29’a.
E 8’a.
1
= (1)
:
:
-%<
B 31’.
,8
D ii 29’b. ' '
E 8’b.
,8
%@ 4 /&
1
4 / 5 $$1
B ! !E
,8
= (2)
? !!
? !!
& / 6 >>
§ 1487
B i 32’.
D ii 30’a.
E 9’a.
J
J
J
1
= (1)
E
E
E
8
D$ /
D $ '/ ' '
D$ /
,
6
6
6
,
,
8 66 6 M) DN 71$$ /
=,
5 /6
B i 33’.
Z # ! "
D ii 30’b. [ ................................ ]
E 9’b.
Z # ! "
= (2)
$
6=
8
§ 1588
B i 34’.
D ii 31’a.
E 10’.
@
@
@
1
= (1)
6
6
6
B i 35’.
D ii 31’b-32’!. [
E 11’.
= (2)
$
,
1
= (1)
§ 17
B i 37’.
D ii 34’.
E 13’.
87
?E
" ] ?E
?E
"
1
1
,
@@ ,
@ L 689 62 2
, @ 6622
, @ 6 62 2
.
5 / 2 /%
#
#
#
8 , >> 6 , $=
-% $
,
@
, @ 66 4 /&
' .
1
4 --
- '/
- /
- /
'
1
Ja
Ja.
Ja
,
!
!
!
"
4 -'* '4 --'
4 --
= (1)
= (1)
44 !
44 !
44 !
6 44
§ 16
B i 36’.
D ii 33’!.
E 12’.
§ 18
B i 38’.
D ii 35’.
E 14’.
4 /&
,
7- / 7 6
@
@
@@ , /
*
,
,
A
66
f
E
E
66
' ' 2 6 6* '6
' ! ". 2 6 6 6
! " 26 6 6
$% 26
E
E
*
'
#
F
1
!
' $' $ 5; 6
.
A
f
261
!
!
90
$$ 5 6
$*
91
Cf. Text I, § 24’: '
' D ' '9
F!
'D' $ /
, #
.
Cf. BRM IV, 32, 7:
Ja
F / / Mcf. Text I, 58’, 62’, 68’N ^h F
Ja
@
, V ...
89
Reading @ ' 6' instead would require more room than the hand-copy allows; @L6 is a popular graph to be
used in writing down the plant’s name, predominantly when written logographically.
88
#
B i 39’.
D ii 36’.
E 15’.
= (2)
' 9 5 !
#
9 5
7 > , 2<2
$%5
!
1
= (1)
?
]
$8
$ 8
A 80’b.
B i 42’.
E 17’b-18’a.
/ 8%
$L5
$L5
##
##
?
$L5
# #
--%/
/ 7
& AN 6% >
& AN
/ -- 5
' !
#
/
&
'
5 5
55
U
-%
7
551
8 6%6
#
#
#
<7 ,
()
]
``
``
+
$ %5 M- % / AN
$
'
"
8
<
$$
3
#
/ !
9 5 !
``
-1
, -,
§ 20
A 92’a.
B i 44’.
E 19’a.
> 66 <
V
94
3
3
1
= (1)
A 92’b-93’a.
B i 45’.
E 19’b-20’a.
1
= (2)
A 93’b.
B i 46’.
E 20’b.
= (3)
90
$ 5 ,= ,
,
/
D ]
D
D
= (5) , > > 6 , $=
A 93’c.
B
E 21’a.
?
' / - -H 2
/
- -H '2 '
/ -H 2
?E
% 1
? ?
? ?
/ > 7 M+
A 80’c-81’a.
B i 43’.
E 18’b.
A 81’b.
--
/ > 7
#
/ > 793
]
= (3) $ 8&
= (4)
,
E
E
E
- M
= (2)
Z
"
5 5&/
6
Z
8
§ 1992
A 79’a.
B i 40’.
D ii 37’.
E 16’a.
A 79’b-80’a.
B i 41’.
E 16’b-17’a.
"
B
B
2826
'/
/
/ 7 M-
*
- - -
M-AN 6 %
6>
#!
#!
#!
G
f0
6 -, M) /%,&
'2*
'D'* 2*
D 2
7 AN
]
9
' 9
9
,
]
, 2 H e2
,2 H e2 2
,2 H e2
725/% AN M-BN -% 1 ,2 2ee2
! ?
/
/
$$ 5
$
$$
$' $
/ $$
D'
95
-- -
On the evidence of the parallels edited in Appendix 1.B an animal name might be expected here; can !
possibly be an abbreviation of !
M
N I $ ,,
‘bat’?
91
Unlike its near-namesakes 5 / 6 and - / 6 this ‘panacea’ is nowhere recorded in the dictionaries.
92
Cf. BRM IV, 32, 18-19: M`\N
V
? ?
$L5 ,
,
/
6 >
D
55
M`cN
.
93
For this descriptive element see Appendix 1.B.
94
By inserting a dividing line behind this
and thereby starting a new section with l. 45’ B has altered its
meaning from ‘alternatively’ into ‘the same (applies as in the preceding section).’
95
Remainder of § 20 must have formed the broken-off beginning of col. ii in B.
-- - M)
= (4)
%
*
# 6
A 94’.
B
E 21’b.
- ,
52 -L 2
6
& 6
= (5)
%
§ 21
E 22-23’.
I
, $=
6% - ,%
"
1 6 -, 4 /
6% - ,%
,,
]
,
,,
> 66 <
*
#!
B ! !E !
97
*0
52 -L 2
77 AN
*
!
]
1
96
!
"
- ,
4 / $ > // 2@&
*
& / 6 >>
52- 2
8
98
G in B and E
§ 22’
B ii 1’99.
§ 23’
A 88’a.
B ii 2’.
D iii 1’a.
' '
1
= (1)
?" G
?" G
?" G
6
!
!
!
5 /
'
$ @
#
,2> >
5 5% M
&
$%5 M-AN
,= ,
*
"
"
*
.
8
-,1
M
*
+
+
+
-,
6 AN , /
M , /
$
:
'
1
= (1)
,2 6 6 ,
,2 6 6 ,
B ii 6’.
D iii 3’b.
,
0
, 6 6,
= (2)
96
5% N
6%
!
!
!
§ 24’
B ii 5’.
D iii 3’a.
§ 25’
B ii 7’.
##
##
5 .
''
6
6
##
!
# # 9 5 !
#. # . 9 5 !
>>
5
5
6 55 /%,&
,2> >
,2> > ]
= (2)
= (3)
4
]
A 88’b.
B ii 3’.
'
D iii 1’b-2’a.
A 89’b.
B ii 4’.
D iii 2’b.
D'' E
D
E
D
E
'
>
1
>
$
> 66 < AN
?
:
!
%@ > /1/%, M$
66 DN
6 6 6
0
0
6 , 66 6 M
'
'
!
DN
3
!
3
# ##
'
0100
Obviously for
"; there can be traced quite a few more of such reversals in the medical corpus, e.g.
BAM 3, iv, 4: D # :
instead of D : #
; BAM 182, rev. 9’: " # :
, see BAM VII,
No. 31, 9’ (p. 192).
97
*
Hand-copy has
;
would seem a less likely emendation because this is precisely what the
break may be suspected to have contained.
98
This is where would have commenced the entirely lost col. ii of E continuing Šammu šikinšu. Exactly how
many lines are missing from B -and D for that matter-, cannot be determined, but that they must have been few.
99
The copied traces do not look like anything in the second part of § 21 (E), so it seems that we need to assume
them to reflect a separate section, which then would have been heading col. ii of E.
,
D iii 4’-5’a.
1
= (1)
M
'
'
B ii 8’.
D iii 5’b.
! ?
c
,
§ 26’
B ii 9’.
D iii 6’a.
Z
Z
= (2)
/
/
.
/
U
0
! ?
! ?
0
.
! "' ]
$%
DN
$
$
> //
.
.
$%5
Z
Z
1
= (1)
! ?
5 66&/ -27
1
/
&
9 5
.9 5
``
= (2)
B ii 10’.
D iii 6’b-7’.
.$
2e/ / 8 4 /&
1
1
,
/ $$
! ?
/ $$
1
'9
9 !
.
/
M-DN - 66
$
0
', - . 7.
$% 5 M) /8&$$
0
, -=7
]
3
.
J
(
()
+ $
' + $
M-DN
DN
, -
§ 27’
B ii 11’.
D iii 8’a.
?
?
1
= (1)
B ii 12’.
D iii 8’b.
.
5
/
/
/ U
#2 !
#. 2. !
.'
/> ,
= (2)
?
?
!
"!
"
8 , $=
§ 28’
B ii 13’.
D iii 9’a.
B ii 14’.
! "
D iii 9’b-10’a. . ! ".
= (2)
-%
$%5
!
"!
.
, -
1
" /
" /
4
f, >
f, >
,2
,2
101
, > &,2
+ $
+ $
$$
G
G
= (1)
100
B9
B9
.]
0
§ 29’
B ii 17’.
D iii 12’a.
B ii 18’.
'
D iii 12’b-13’a. '
: D
: 'D
> / %/ 7
(
()
8
'
# 4
#. 4 ]
C4 @
"
.
2-26 =
44 4 /
.
- ,
- ,
2 -26
. ' . 2. -26
.
42
9 5 !
9 5 !
,,
6> /%,&
.
42 2
. 42 2
= (3)
= (4)
-
$%
B ii 15’.
D iii 10’b-11’a.
B ii 16’.
D iii 11’b.
6 %
' '
G
3
1
.
6% - ,%
G
3
= (1)
$$
5
/1
/%,&
]
@ /
@ /
/ -% 5
-%, 6
!: 6
5
5
,
,
Possibly just a scratch or even a ‘firing hole.’
Presumably short for 1/1 M 9
N , > &,2 . Despite the use of $%5 this restoration should prevail over
#
I 5 < 7 , because (1) the Therapeutic Vademecum has the very rare
42
herb prescribed
for it, of all ailments (BAM 1, iii, 32), and (2) impotence and flaccid limbs are markedly interrelated conditions
sharing symptoms and a common cause in witchcraft; see CAD, T, p. 28, s.v. , > , 2, with Šaziga references;
also Biggs, Šaziga, p. 3. It cannot be denied, on the other hand, that 5 < 7 , too is incidentally mentioned as a
possible cause of libido loss: Biggs, Šaziga, p.3b, quote from LKA 109.
101
= (2) /
B ii 19’.
D iii 13’b-14’.
6
= (3)
6
$
7 ,
7 ,
@ /
,
0102
9 5
'9 . 5 !
$%5
§ 30’
B ii 20’.
D iii 15’a.
"
!
!
!
'9 !
J' 9 !
1
B ii 21’.
D iii 15’b-16’.
'.103
'
8 %,
= (2)
K
/
/
§ 31’105
D iii 17’!.
D iii 18’!.
!
§ 32’107
B ii 27’.
!
, -,
$$
,,
] F H2
!
"
8 , $=
104
!
, -
"
G
8
= (2)
+ $
$
,,
,. ,
$%
"
(
(
8 88 $$ ,2 2$$
!
1
= (1)
?$
?$ ]
$
8 M-DN , $= M-DN
J
= (1)
$
G
'@2'
,
. '()
+
$
$$
,
@2 U, 2/72,
106
> //1
,
"
8
= (1’)
§ 33’
B ii 28’.
1
= (1)
B ii 29’. @2
,
= (2) @2 U , 2/72,
B ii 30’. G
= (3) /%,&
!
3
/8 %
§ 34’
B ii 31’. ' '
= (1)
'
1
B ii 32’.
B ii 33’.
§ 35’
B ii 34’.
= (1)
1
B ii 35’.
102
Tentatively so restored in view of KADP 1, v, 35.37.
The copyist erased a sign, possibly
, and squeezed a
between the erasure and the next line.
104
An erasure?
105
This section has been overlooked by A. Millard in his copy of D.
Cf. Text III, § 13’:
! " # @2 * ,
]
! ?E
J
!
(
? ?
!'' Z
' I M`N
1
/>% 286
> $%
> //
8 , >> 6 , $= ,,
, > 66 6 >%
,2-& @2 U, 2/72,
MJN
> //1 ,
.
106
- , Q/ , - 7 I 6% - ,% /2$- , - 77 ?
107
Remaining sections present on B only, starting after a gap of an estimated five lines.
103
§ 36’
B ii 36’. '
1
= (1)
(
B ii 37’.
'
#
,
= (2)
§ 37’
B ii 38’.
'$ @ @ 6 ,
= (1)
1
$ @@6 ,
1
- 66
§ 38’
B ii 39’.
= (1)
B ii 40’.
B ii 41’.
B ii 42’.
= (4)
>
1
>
0108
' ,2'
-% 1
H e2 '2
,2 2 ee2
§ 39’
B ii 43’.
!
= (1) $
1
!
$
66
'
B ii 44’.
/ 7
= (2)
>
1
8f 8F
>
]@
/ F , 9 5 !
8 8% ]@ / ,
$%5
"
8
§ 40’
B ii 45’.
B ii 46’.
Remainder of B is Therapeutic Vademecum, a selection from which is edited in Appendix I.A.
108
Or:
A
?
Text IIIa
Almost exclusively represented by C, which is why the text here edited coincides with that
tablet. What scanty duplications do exist have been relegated to the footnotes.109
Transliteration
Obv.
§1
1.
1
= (1)
2.
X Y
> 6 6 !
= (2) 4 /&X Y 1
> 616 $%
&
6 -, , $ 66 8
§ 2112
4.
5 / G
1
= (1)
5 / /%,&
4 / ,
5 /
I M`N
1
,2 9 *114 !
I MJN
,2
?E
$%5
§ 4115
8.
1
!
!
!
= (2)
> //
3
, -
5 /
>
8 /8&$$
/ H2
1
!
1
3
#
"
> 616 $%
&
//
'
= (1)
!
$$
> 6 '6 ' !
$
§5
10.
> //
&
$
8 , >> 6 , $=
1
9.
#
> 616 $%
(
5 /
= (1)
> //1
,
> 66 <
:
/
>
1
A
%@ 7 6
$
#
&
//
'
8 /8&$$
> //1
§6
12.
= (1)
4 /&
> 6 6 '! "'
5 / 4 /&
7.
= (2)
6 /
& 6 > >1,
§ 3113
6.
11.
725/% 4>
# 6 > > ,
5.
= (2) 1
111
#
#, $ 6 6 8
3.
= (3) 1
0 110
"
,
> 66 <
9B ?
1
$ 56
/%,&
!
1
G
G
9B ?
/%, $ 56 / >=
109
§§ 5-7 and 12-15 have recently been translated by B. Böck, Texte zur Heilkunde, pp. 166-167.
See below ll. 6, 8 and cf. Text I, § 9, 1.
111
// Ha, 2’
$ !
I
- / %$
8
?
112
// Ha, 3’-4’ yields nothing noteworthy.
113
// Ha, 5’-6’ yields nothing noteworthy except that it seems to have
instead of
before
114
Hand-copy:
.
115
// Ha, 7’-8’ happens to fill the lacuna at the end of this section’s first line: (8’)
''
110
,2.
.
13.
#
116
?
&
= (2)
5 /U
§7
14.
1
6 %
15.
= (2)
1
16. d
*
= (3) d ,
C
8
B
19. ',
& %,&
'
'
0
2
0
2
#!
?E
D
!
1
/ $$
d
#
$
- 6 -25
/
,- /%< 7
<
/
&
/
> e%
-L6 -2 5
@
! ?
22.
23.
8 >>
= (3)
8 >>
/
XX
# 6,
YY -% 2/72,
%6 ,
*0
2
X Y
8U $ %
'120
0
$
/ $$
= (2)
YY0
> 66 <
0
X Y F8
1
,,
119
2
§9
21.
= (1)
'118
' '!
8 , >> 6 , $=
! ?
8
,-
'
' ? # XX
J
1
/ %
, >>%8
- -- /5
,
/%,&
, >> 8
? !
1
= (1)
:
, >%8%
:
5 7 4 8 81-
# ##
5 6, --%
, > 8
%4
!(
6 % ? ,,
1
4
5 ,,
G
F8
8 4 /&
&
/
§8
18.
I MdN
1
6
#
= (4) 8 >>
20.
6> V
6%
17. 8 > >
I MJN ,
5 6, --
J
>
3
=,
V 117
3
= (1)
#
,,U
1
@
/
/ 121
/
6 %
e/
24.
, '], '
= (4)
, ]
// ,
// ,
25.
Rev.
§ 10’
1’.
§ ``P122
2’.
G
3’.
= (2) 1
116
G '
/%,&
= (1)
B '>
/
6 >> >
/
1
/%,
0
/
0
' ' #
&
Perhaps to be emended into
in view of § 17’ below.
Looks quite like
on hand-copy; cf. Text I, § 37’, 1.
118
Suggested by CAD, T, 445, s.v. , >%8% .
119
A foreign name, possibly in the Urartian tongue, is likely to underlie this chain of syllables; might we have to
/
read
2
I
2
? Nothing even remotedly like it is on record, though.
120
! " ?
121
I. Diakonoff and S. Kashkai, Geographical Names According to Urartian Texts (RGTC, Bd. 9, 1981), p. 60,
s.n. Nairi: KURna-i-ri ‘stands for Urart. Biainele in the Assyrian Inscriptions of Sardure I, and of I pu(w)ine and
Minu ;’ p. 21: ‘Biainele = The Land of Urar<u (as empire ... ).’
122
// Text I, § 15: M`N
MJN
MdN
$ B> F '
'
! ?E
!
!
5/ Z#
#
.
117
$ B>
4’.
!
?E
!
!
5 / Z#
#
1$ 6 >>
= (3)
$$
§ 12’123
5’.
8 , >> 6 , $=
Z ! ?" ,2 /
1
= (1)
!
6’.
!
> //
= (2)
H ,2 4
&5 ,2/
$
3
8L `
/%
*
, 7 55 ,
5 1/
61
, , >>
e
,2 4 e e
J
d
D'
F0
8 /8&$$ ,26288
,
1
6% 1
> //1
,
, ,=/
% & 77U
124
K
0
7’.
= (3) , ,=/
,
§ 13’
8’.
1
= (1)
!
9’.
?E
> //
= (2)
/>% 286
!
(
1
§ 15’
12’.
= (1)
§ `AP
13’.
123
''
'* ,
125
,
! '' Z
'
, > 66 6 >%
!
>
*
& @2 U, 2/72,
? ?
/>% 286
# @2
"
$%
J
= (1)
= (2)
>
8 , >> 6 , $= ,,
§ 14’
10’.
``P '
!
J
"
#
$%
,2--
> // ,
> 66 <
:
&
2 >&>
> // 0
126
> ,
> , >=,
> //1
# ##
1
? !
A
- -- /5K 7 6
# ##
? !
# ##
-27
A
#
F
&
> 6%<
, /*128 >
e, D
127
#
// Text II, § 11.
A reading
H ‘he will be healed’ (Böck, Texte zur Heilkunde, p. 167) would be difficult orthographically
and make unusual syntax and phraseology. On the analogy of the recurring prescript
D
,
/I
% & 77U , =/ ‘you rub (the diseased limb) until blood comes out,’ a verb of therapeutic action is what
we need instead, with a prognostic ‘he will be cured’ optionally added at the very conclusion. The required verb
would seem to be supplied here in the final hendiadyoin , ,=/
,
, for to subordinate the
clause to
the preceding clause would be hardly admissable because of the
in between; besides, an
clause following
its main clause would in itself be a most surprising thing to come across. A fitting adverb in
modifying the
0
following verb has been searched for in vain. Can D ]
feasibly be an anomalous apocope for
77U M , dative suffix), then, as a last resort? It would save the phenomena. If one were to prefer the
alternative, however, disregarding the Q>g2S, Q >62
, F
I
K would make a far better candidate
than
. It should then be taken for a gloss to the phrase
[ drawing attention to a reversed
order in another original the copyist was having at hand. By following it we would get rid of the awkardly placed
, which is the aptest of elements to have between the verbs that constitute the hendiadyoin after all. The
variant reading then is: ‘ ... you insert (the suppository) into his rectum, and again, and once again, until blood
comes out.’
125
Following B. Böck, Advances in Mesopotamian Medicine, p. 125, n. 85, who omits the exclamation mark
after
, though; she renders ‘spittle-from-the-ground.’
126
Unattested elsewhere but conceivable as the counterpart of 2 >&> 5 ; Böck, Texte zur Heilkunde:
‘gib/pukku?-Pflanze.’
127
á[
]
?b a mere conjecture building on obv., l. 13 and rev., l. 14’, each of which has , to be
sure, not F.
124
= (1)
1
- -- /5K 7 6
1
6 %
§ 17’
14’.
3
= (1)
55 , /> e,
&
G
<]#
6> /%,&
/ -%
§ 18’
15’.
6
> 66 <]
1
$ > // /%,&
9 !
16’.
*0
1
4 /
$
7
1
D
3
=,
'G
= (1)
I MJN 4 /&
7
#'
%/
F
0
129
&
17’-20’
128
Hand-copy:
; , /* > e , convincingly proposed CAD, T, p. 485, s.v. , /> e, b.
Restorations that deserve consideration are; F '
''
[ F ' ' + one of the genitive complements
this vocable in the construct state unexceptionally goes with; F ' '
does not quite fit the traces.
129
Text IIIb
This text is represented by the small fragment Hb only. According to Köcher, KADP, p. 10,
ad Nr. 34b it is part of the same tablet as Ha (KADP, 34a) without joining it directly, which
would make it a partial representative of Text III, too. Yet, the left-hand copy of Hb on KADP
Pl. 76, though unmistakably presented as forming the uppermost part of the fragment’s
obverse, can by no means represent the initial sections of the obverse of Text III, since in that
case Hb, l. 5’ 6 > > , would be continuing Ha, l. 4’ (// C, obv. l. 5) with a mere two
signs missing in between. However, the rulings of the two fragments do clearly not match and
for this reason alone this reconstruction is bound to fail. Even if Ha and Hb were assumed not
to be physically linked, Hb cannot so be framed in Text III, for what few clues its ‘obverse’
supplies is enough to dismiss it as a duplicate of C, §§ 1-2. If Ha and Hb do indeed belong to
the same tablet, obverse and reverse of Hb probably need to be reversed so as to fill part of
the huge gap Text III has in C missing its lower half entirely.
Transliteration
‘Obv.’
§1
1’.
2’.
,
F
,
= (2’)
§2
3’.
P
e
> > $ /0
> >$/
= (1)
0130
4’.
]>2
/
= (2)
5’.
6
= (3)
6 > >1,
@>
131
0
> > ,
6 '0
6’.
G
‘Rev.’
§ 3’
1’.
2’.
132
#
&
= (2’)
3’.
!
= (3’)
, $=
§ 4’
4’.
'
= (1)
1
/
*0
,
1
130
Or ! " ?
A specific biotope for the plant to grow may have been described here; , 6 6
132
9 ?; or 4
?
131
not intended by hand-copy.
G
! ?
/ %,&
7’.
#
725/%
!(
7 :
:
1
8
#
4 >> , 4 8 81-
!
9’.
#!
5 7 4 8 81-
j AP
8’.
= (1)
$
/ $$
&
= (2)
?E
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (2)
G
?
/%,&
= (1)
725/% -2,=
'! ?
'0 $
/ $$ $
#
11’.
&
= (2)
0
12’.
+
= (3)
, -,
0
§ 8’
13’.
?
= (1)
/ $$ 7 6
$
0
14’.
15’.
!
= (3)
, $=
133
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
'
= (1)
§ 7’
10’.
?E
6 >% 7 0
= (2)
§ 5’
6’.
7 0 '!
6 >
5’.
A
133
6 % - ,%
,
,,
?, would be quite out of context here; possibly
*
?
Text IV = F
Transliteration
Col. I’
§ 1’
1’.
!
8
= (1’)
> 66 <
§ 2’
2’.
1
= (1)
!
3’.
+
$
8
= (2)
, -
$$
§ 3’
4’.
# ##
= (1)
1
? !
- -- /5K
!
5’.
> 66 <
?E
!
8 , >> 6 , $=
= (2)
6’.
> 66 <
= (3)
§ 4’134
7’.
''
1
= (1)
8’. !
= (2)
4
/
B
8
6 >>
4 1
,
§ 5’
9’.
1
= (1)
>
10’.
11’.
E
= (3)
, 7
F < ,2 !
<%,2
8
> 66 <
§ 6’
12’.
$ 5 6k 2*0
1
= (1)
1
13’.
Col. II’
§ 7’
1’.
9B ?
= (1)
1
2’.
= (2)
134
>
#;
8 >6
= (2)
1
6
!
$ 56
' 7 ,2 9 5 !
6
Cf. Text II, § 10.
7 ,2
$%5
8
$ 56
/ K
66
§ 8’
3’.
'
1
= (1)
>0
;P 5
= (2) 5
>
> /%
#
0
&
§ 9’
5’.
:
1
= (1)
#
135
4 >> , 4 8 81-
6’.
= (2) 4 /&
1
= (3)
8’.
= (4)
5 66&/
0
J
7’.
! ?
D
2 82 6 2-2 / 7
// 8
M N
// 8%
!
8
§ 10’
9’.
10’.
§ 11’
11’.
135
The same curious detail Text IIIb, § 6’, 1; however, §§ 4’-7’ of Text IIIb and §§ 7’-10’ of Text IV are just
too dissimilar in length for these fragments to be seriously considered duplicates.
Text V = G
Transliteration
Obv.
§ 1’
1’.
1
= (1)
D
2’.
*
#
7
= (2)
&
8L
3’.
,26288
= (3)
§ 2’
4’.
E
1
= (1)
5’.
6’.
4
6 6
' ]
§ 3’
7’.
E
1
= (1)
4
6 6
, 2* !
8’.
/
= (2)
/ 7/
,2
8
§ 4’
9’.
# ##
? !
= (1)
1
- -- /5K
5 6 -136
10’.
= (2) 5 6 -
``P
$$ '
,
22
$$ ,
= (3)
Rev.
§5’
1’.
1
= (1)
0
2’.
= (2) 1
3’.
/%
#
,
#* 2 !
= (4)
5’.
136
2 ,
4 /
1
4 /
6
"
!
! ?
137
2,
138
& , 6 77&/
= (3)
4’.
0
]
?
/> , ]$ 61,
$
8
/ $$
X
Y
9 !
- ,
5 6 -I
5 6 -, ‘herb against woe;’ cf. AHw., p.23, s.v. 5 6 - 3.
42
also possible.
138
Cf. CAD, T, p. 464, s.v. **,, 65
should be
65 ; on the assumption that KADP 36, vi, 8 ! G
understood / e 77&/ (6 / e 77&/ is frequently attested as a professional name; CAD, R, p. 309, s.v. / eU 2a9’) it
stands to reason that the next entry in the group (l.9)
be interpreted , 6 77&/ . With no more
than just two occurrences in our record of this ‘herdsman of birds’-plant no certainty can be achieved, though.
137
Or
= (5) <%>, , $= X
Y
$ 6% - ,% ,
88
139
6’. , - / /
= (6) , - //
§ 6’
7’. Ú GAR- ú GIM tam- il4 Ú.[.................]
1
= (1)
8’. Ú ta-ar-[bu-ue-ti
= (2)
M
,
16
140
N , / > e,
§ 7’
9’.
G
/%,&
= (1)
10’.
11’.
Text VI = J
Tiny as it is, this shred of cuneiform is of some importance in that it would appear to come
from the library of Tiglath-pileser I and ought to be valued accordingly as the sole witness to
bear evidence that Šammu šikinšu texts were in existence well before the turn of the second
and first millennia.141
Transliteration
1’. [ ... ] x x x142 [ ... ]
143
2’. [
1
= (1)
&
4 /&
8
4’.
A
,
= (3)
139
@ $$ ,
4 /
"
$
= (2)
5’.
6’.
7’.
1
!
3’.
6
144
> 6
G
G
!
The D stem of - /U ‘to vomit’ is not commonly attested; it must be assigned the causative meaning ‘to make
vomit’ otherwise conveyed by the Š stem.
140
Supposing this is a plant name in the first place; a verb , / not to be excluded.
141
Which would come as no surprise considering that this date and provenance have been established for the
full-fledged Therapeutic Vademecum, as transmitted in KADP 1, v-vi.
142
/ '* e > ! "
I
8%, / e1>
8
?; cf. Text I, § 43’, 1.
143
Cf. BAM 417, 8-10;
6 may be attempted as an alternative.
144
Hand-copy does not exactly suggest
[,
77
; perhaps
> F 6
= e[n&ma b 6
3
‘when it is cooked,’ cf. BAM 417, 10 // BAM 32, 12’.
Appendix 1 - Gleanings from other plant lists relevant to Šammu šikinšu
A. BAM 379, ii, 47 sqq.
The remainder of the tablet edited above as prime witness for Text II is Therapeutic Vadecum,
whose published exemplars are listed BAM V, p. ix-x, ad Nrs. 421-429. Like BAM 381 and
423 this particular manuscript of the triple-column recension has no vertical rulings to
highlight its distinct columns.145 However, while its sister manuscripts clearly mark off their
second column from the first throughout, BAM 379 does so in a less rigid manner; in fact,
only section iii, 17-23 shares with them this lay-out. Also, and more importantly, the BAM
379 exemplar appears to be unique for including a number of lines or even entire sections that
run quite unlike the ultra-terse scheme typical of all the rest, using a phraseology reminiscent
of Šammu šikinšu by adding more details in a narrative style.146 What makes this exemplar
particularly relevant to our case is its frequent referral to a god’s deputy demon as the power
responsable for the disease, a pronounced characteristic of Šammu sikinšu Text I but
conspicuously absent not only from the chief representative of the Therapeutic Vademecum
BAM 1, but also from Šammu sikinšu Text II (§ 30 excepted), which precedes the Therapeutic
Vademecum part on this very tablet. The portions that make up this Eigengut are being
presented here along with a number of sections that stand out for their use of the
formula, another, formal signal that we are on Šammu šikinšu ground.
Transliteration
Col. II
51’. ,
I
,
147
0
F H2 '$
0
!K
F H2
52’.
!
!
"
I
0
' '
I
149
I
145
$0!
(
+
, -
$
$$
!
!
'
5 /6
'
Ja
5 / 2 /%
(
+ $
, -
(
8 , $=
, -
/!
"
8
F H '2 @ 6 !
2
$$
F H '2
20
2
$$
+ $
20150
8 ,0 <
1, <
!
"!
'0 '8 ,'0 <k
, <k
"
8 , $=
2//
6
55’.
I
'8 '0148
' 18 0 - /%$ 0
'
54’.
56’.
!
8
53’.
I
"
8 , $=
6
"
8
KADP 1, v-vi combines the second and third column into a single column twice as wide as the first one, and
separates the two that result by double rulings.
146
Contrary to standard Therapeutic Vademecum practice it would also seem to prescribe the administering of
the medicament in the present tense throughout, with the exception of just two unequivocal instances of the
infinitive mood being used, iii, 37’.39’;
6 I
6 & 6 . At any rate, it has the present tense
explicitly marked in the verb ,
lm Sm $ consistently written
(passim) as opposed to standard
I
% and in E I , 7
(iv, 28-29).
147
*
Perhaps
?
3
148
Or ?
9 5 I 62
$%5 ?
149
Something like ?
E[
5 Q/ 5 might be assumed, or else an attribute indicating the baby’s
condition; traces do indeed suggest
.
150
' ' '8 ,'
2 I
8,
would also suit the context;
8 , 6 >> may be suggested as third-best
candidate.
57’. , /
#,
I , /
F H2
6-
152
7 >,
151
'k
6- 2e
!
"
8
( ... )
Col. III
1.
F H2
I
/, !
/,
2
2.
I
5
-'
2
B
F H2 '
51- 6 >>
M
'
2/ @ 6
!
"
8
N
/
6.
I ,%e
7 5
/=
(
7.
"
8
F H2
!
7&5
"
!
8 , $=
+ $
, -
I
$$
( ... )
*
11.
I
-,
$
F H2 $ /6 5 !
153
%
$ /6 5
"
8
( ... )
F H2 @ 6 !
13.
I
6
"
!
8 , $=
(
+ $
, -
$$
( ... )
?
26.
#
I 4 / 5 6 --
27. F H 2 $ / 6 5 !
I
33’.
$ /6 5
( ... )
G
/
$$
4 4
`"
4 4
!
$ @
' '
##
>>
154
155
]- 0 @ 6
I
F H2
0
I
6 %
4.
@ 77
@ 77
5. !
286
F H2
(
/
+ $ '
/ D
/ 7 /
/
>
$$
/
,
,
f>
156
!
"
8
+ $
, -
M
(
"
, -
B
3
6>
$
I , $=
!
8
( ... )
Col. IV
3.
151
+ $
, -
4 66
35’.
I
(
6% %/
4 66
34’.
!
F
I / @
I
"
8 , $=
$$
N
Given the available room
6 - k seems a much likelier candidate to have been in the breach than
2$ 6F , k , let alone 6 @ 6
- k . Meslamta’e’a should be given a fair chance, though, on the
evidence of CT 14, Pl. 38, K. 14081, 2’:
/
MI
F H 2N 2$ 6
, k.
152
A reading 6 , I 6&, should not be ruled out right away;
6, , on the other hand, should.
153
This is to implicate that
can have reference to the $ % disease proper, too; cf. M. Stol, art.
“Samana,” in RlA, Bd. 11, p. 610 (CAD, $ % A, mng. 1); hence CAD, S, p. 111, s.v. $ % A, heading of
lemma needs adjusting accordingly.
154
*
Could it possibly be , 6
; or else $* , defectively representing $ U ?
155
With the utmost reservation a reading
E
may be ventured, as a distortion of
E I 8 8% ; an
*
emendation ]
# I 7 > , 1 ] 4 would introduce a disease hitherto unknown.
156
At first miscopied by the scribe as f $f and then corrected by an erasure; cf. CT 14, 38, 4’-5’: (4’) @ 7 7
MI
F H 2N (5’)
/
f> .
13.157 - -* I - --
*
*158
%
-%,
'!:
:
!
%
/ 7
> //
"
!
3
$
8 /8&$$
14. , - 7
I , - 77
> //1
,
( ... )
159
20.
I
7 7
7 7
,
,
#
21.
I
,
,
,
+!
>1,
+
E
6 6% >
160
>1, , $ 66 5
( ... )
B. KADP 2, v, 36-48
The four entries that make up the lines of text edited below share three features that mark
them off as a coherent unit quite distinct from its context: (1) the unorthodox writing of the
as
, (2) the
formula, and (3) each plant being defined by naming
initial
the particular animal that will be seen resting on it. Its supposed original from which it would
have been excerpted clearly manifests itself this way as having been another type of tablet and
composition than the source from which the rest of excerpts collected on this tablet derive.
While these are largely from the Irianna series, the section which the excerpt unit under
discussion makes part of (v, 34 - vi, 4) is not; it appears to have more ground in common with
Šammu šikinšu.161 A partial duplicate is KADP 4, 36-37; these lines have been inserted at their
appropriate place and are marked by their line number being put between ( ) brackets.
Transliteration
55
36.
I
551
,
37.
I
38.
157
XX
,
XX
_
/ > /
>7
%/ > / >7
YY
YY
162
!
"
BAM 379, iv, 12sqq. // SpTU III, 106, rev. 1sqq.
// has - - .
159
?
// has
]
.
160
A near parallel is KADP 1, v, 16-17:
' :
+
E 4
' B ]
# +
$ 6 5 I
42/
>1,
6 6% >
4=
6 >> ]
U >1,
6 $ 66 5 .
161
As already observed by Köcher in his description of KADP Nr. 2. (p. 6); ‘mit gewissen Berührungspunkten,’
sc. with KADP, Nr. 33 and duplicates.
162
At first sight an entry mentioning the H @ 6 ; / type of magic -written phonetically at that- would seem
rather off-topic in a text like this and to deserve a fair degree of skepticism as to its correct transmission at this
*
point; an emendation
‘worm of the mountain’ might come to one’s mind.’ On closer view,
however, the copied reading may claim credibility on the ground that the named kind of magic is mentioned
more than once in concomitance with love magic ( F@ @F,
@F e.g. STT 300, 11; an edition by M. Geller of the
šipu’s Almanac is forthcoming: Look to the Stars: Babylonian medicine, magic, astrology and melothesia; for
the time being see Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte Preprint 401 [2010]), which is related to
C 4 @ . Moreover, a considerable number of H @ 6 ; / spells betray a strong erotic bias, among other things
through their eager use of such amorous words as /= [ 7=5 [ 7&5 [ a drug for which is advised in the ammu
F H2
(see Appendix 1.A
ikin u related section BAM 379, iii, 6:
/
7 5
above; for details of H @ 6 ; / eroticism see my forthcoming essay “A Time to Rejoice,” to appear in the 2010
Barcelona RAI Proceedings). Even so, scepsis is in order for want of even a single instance of the aktam herb
158
I
2@ 6
39. !
//
8
( +
I , $=
, -
$$
40.
(36a)
55
I
551
:
:
- 4 66 /
41.
/ >7 V
(36b-37a) / , >* > * 7
: G
: G
3
*
@
2 /f ]
/f
I / >7 Mv.l. /, >> 7 N V 5 << 6 %
42.
(37b)
B9
I
C4 @
!
!$
,
6
Z
!
551
-
2 28
, -
55
I
166
163
( +
8 , $=
43.
44.
!
,
72//
,
3
6>
$$ Mv.l.
$
, 6% %6 ,,
28164N
165
'
%
4 /
I 2,,&, - 4 /
45.
I
- 6 5, !
- 6 5,
I
551
( +
, -
/
6,, !
>7
!
286
I 6% %6 ,,
$$
72// / >7
B167
47.
48. 6 '
!
55
46.
I
"
8 , $=
$
"
!
8 , $=
,
( + '
, -
$$
being prescribed for anointing in the sixty-odd spells with rituals that I have collected in preparation to a
comprehensive edition of the H @ 6 ; / corpus.
163
The writing M N instead of the morphologically correct $M N indicates that a scribe when copying a tablet
would on occasion totally refrain from enunciating things in Akkadian; he would rather have preferred to
articulate word signs sumerophonically, as becomes apparent, for example, in the telling error
RQ/
!I
/
, STT 95, end of l. 1; see this same text l. 42 for another instance of
instead of $ after a sumerographically written verb ending in $:
( X Y !( !(
I
6
/X Y , 55 $$ .
164
In using the
sign the gloss may reflect a pronunciation l28, the intermediate state (GAG, § 31d, ‘über
w ?’) to be postulated between
8 and 8, still possessing the intervocalic phone of elusive character.
165
An exceptional case of quantitative metathesis, provided ' is really there.
166
This
has nothing to do with the
plant nor in all likelihood with the
commonly used for equating
plants, to be read - / , ‘cryptonym,’ (KADP 12-19 and passim), but is in replacement of " I 2,,&, ‘spider.’
The same may underlie BAM 379, iii, 42’-43’:
!
(
+ $ ]
,
I 516 2e/
2,,&, - /%$ , $=
, $$ ] 516
5&6
2,,&, - /%$
% 1 ,
.
167
Obviously for
286 .
Appendix 2 - An edition of CTN IV, 72 (ND 4368) and BAM 407 (VAT 14534)
The frequent diagnosis of diseases as being the manifestation of malevolent spirits in their
capacity of specific gods’ deputy powers168 is a characteristic Šammu šikinšu shares with the
fascinating Nimrud tablet ND 4368, which J. Kinnier-Wilson edited in IRAQ 19 (1957), pp.
40-49. His editio princeps of the cuneiform appeared in IRAQ 18 (1956), Pl. XXV and that
hand-copy was reprinted unaltered in CTN IV, 72 (hereinafter referred to as A). The Uruk
fragment VAT 14534 neatly duplicating its second column was first published by Falkenstein
in 1931 in LKU 63; a new hand-copy was provided by K cher in BAM 407 (hereinafter
referred to as B). Valuable comments since made on this text can be found in Stol, Epilepsy,
pp. 6, 77, 90, and Heeßel, BAD, via Index p. 430; they limit their comments to those lines that
give symptoms and diagnoses. Kinnier-Wilson touched upon his pioneering edition in the
comments to his translation of Diagnostic Handbook, tablet 27.169
Inasmuch as B has turned out to be an exact duplicate of A ii Köcher’s remark BAM IV, xxxi
‘Zum Tenor des Textes vgl. ND 4368’ somewhat understates the former’s true identity.170
Since an updated edition of this text would therefore seem to be long overdue it was decided
to create one here as an appendix to the Šammu šikinšu texts that stand out for much the same
peculiarities of phraseology.
Transliteration
A Col. I
§ 1’
A i 1’.
A i 2’.
B
= (2)
6 >>
?
4
§ 2’172
A i 3’.
= (1)
168
,
2
9
551
' !:
6
#
$&8
6% 1
-% 1 &
171
$$ 5
,
8 ,1 %
X -Y - 6
-- 6 %
N. Heeßel, Texte zur Heilkunde, p. 19, n. 20: ‘Die Wendung “Stellvertreter” eines Gottes bezeichnet
dämonische Kräfte, die nicht aus eigenem Antrieb, sondern auf Weisung größerer Götter handeln.’ This
statement is liable to spark off dispute over the question of whether utterances about a demon’s machinations
that leave the gods unmentioned should be taken as evidence to the contrary. As an argumentum e silentio it
should not be given much credit, even though Jean Bottéro made a thing quite like it the cornerstone of his
theory of Sumero-Semitic philosophy of evil (La plus vieille religion - En Mésopotamie [Paris: Gallimard, 1998],
pp. 357-358; = Religion in Mesopotamia, 186ff.). I shall be back on this in the second part of the present study.
169
“On Stroke,” pp. 88, 93.
170
How the two fragments actually do relate to one another cannot be gathered from Borger, HKL either.
171
See below ad l. 9’.
172
The descriptive and diagnostic parts of §§ 2’and 3’ reappear in almost identical words in the second section
(ll. 14-19) of Tablet 27 in the Diagnostic Handbook as the first two entries, albeit in reversed order, of a total of
four each diagnosing a patient’s symptoms
# ?
# $ : Heeßel, BAD, p.298. ll. 16-17 read:
6
#
-- 6
, / / '6 ' ' ' '
]
(
/
6
# ?
#$ :
,
>>
, //
, ‘If a man while walking about falls down on his face, his eyes
turn open wide and he does not know how to turn them back to normal nor is he able to move his hands and feet
of his own volition - an Evil One has seized that man, the creation of Antašubba has managed to impregnate
him;’
, // M N here interpreted as ]2/U ‘to be/get pregnant,’ Štn, pret.; although a tn stem preterite is an
intrinsically difficult thing, it would seem less problematic than Kinnier-Wilson’s recently suggested reading
, / .5
(“On Stroke,” p. 88, n. 54), ‘interpreted as a subjunctive III/2 (with passive significance)’ of the verb
/25U, since the the preceding
, if read 1 , is the preposition, not the conjunction, as is clearly borne out by
l. 23 of the same text which has
Z !E
# # $ (indicative 77 >> $ $ )
(I2 & )
#
(subjunctive 77 >,
).
A i 4’. ' ?'173
:
= (2) / e, 6% /
A i 5’.
8%,
# ?
6
= (3)
-
#$
& 2
7> $$ > U,
>&, 2/
= (5)
$
F
§ 3’178
A i 10’.
*
/ Z
#
5 6 55
$$ - /4 66 5 6 55
5177
9
551
,
4 8 $$
4>
? ?
$
$$ 5
/
, -% 1
4 8 ,$
-,
*175
*
!
2
6 $
A i 11’.
> > / ,2 H 5
>> /,2 255
, -,
,
$
= (1)
F
,
?
% 1
=
, > 66 6
+
'
6
6%
, >> 6 , $= ,,
6
6 >> ,
A i 9’.
= (7)
176
%/
B
= (6) -,
173
,
,
A i 8’. +
= (2)
5&6 8 / %
:
,
! ?E
!9
A i 7’.
%
174
:
A i 6’. URUN-d! e-ri
= (4)
/
6 -- ,
,,
/1 %
,,
,,
6 -- ,
% &
-/ /
-/ /%
;
--1
66 &
Stol, Epilepsy, p. 77 suggests ‘saliva (?),’ apparently restoring ' ?'; cf. vi, 10’ below.
Differently Stol, Epilepsy, p. 77:
I 1 , ‘(something) like,’ Kinnier-Wilson, “On Stroke,” p. 88
translates ‘it is as if,’ taking
I 1
for the conjunction. Diagnostic Handbook, tablet 40, l.27: 8,
@ // 2 , 88 $$ might be quoted to underpin Stol’s interpretation. The interpretation here proposed,
however, would appear to be in closer concord with the main theme of this text, which is the hierarchy of the
powers that cause diseases.
175
*
Hand-copy has
# , which I propose to emend into *
; the subsequent sections (ll. 14’ and
*
21’-22’) are using ,, complementing > 6%6 , not
. K.-W. reads ll.6’-7’:
#
!X Y9
, ? ? I
$1 , ]8
7- / 4>
$
, , > 66 6.
176
Apparently for
! 9
,.
177
Cf. above i, 2’. Since the verb 9 I $%5 does not normally combine with 26 , nor prepositional
55 for
that matter,
in both these instances must necessarily represent the noun
55 ,
being genitive case:
551 . After all, it is the patient’s skull/head that is affected (‘creation of Antašubba-epilepsy,’ l. 5’) and his
skull area, too, that is being treated (ears internally, l.2’; neck, l.9’). Consequently, the ? preceding it must
be in the construct state, which would seem to rule out its reading as @ 66U; at any rate a @ 66
551 would
represent a less than viable monstrum lexically. Had these lines of dromena been given due attention, the aporia
among scholars summarized by Heeßel, BAD, p. 304, ad 14-15 might not have come into being. The appropriate
interpretation then is: 2
551
$$ 5 ‘the Evil of (= affecting) his skull/head will be eradicated.’
Contrary to Heeßel I would wholeheartedly join Stol in his argument that ? in contexts like this should be
read 62
on the evidence provided by AO 7660, iii, 7’-12’, a portion of text which has been pointed out by
these and previous scholars as being closely related to CTN IV, 72, in particular its first column; M. Geller
suggested to me that iii, 7’-11’ of the former might even be a full duplicate of the last section of the latter (§ 5),
where the column breaks off. He is to re-edit the Louvre piece along with its duplicates in a future issue of JMC
and kindly gave me a preview of his newly-made hand-copy. After a section giving symptoms and diagnosis in
(
M\PN /
the following words: MAO 7660, [ 3P)
:
,
> > / ,2 H 5
6
F
# ? '
# $ McPN
[ the subsequent section, set off by a dividing line, continues
(AO 7660, iii, 12’)
62
2 As the 62
is not further qualified in any detail it should no
doubt be understood to refer to the Anta ubba-related ? of the preceding section. Obviously then, ll. 12’-14’
constitutes but the first of a series of subsections (running down to l. 20’) depending on the main section ll. 7’11’ rather than marking a change of subject, as Heeßel will have it, putting too much weight on there being a
dividing line between l. 11’ and l. 12’. Kinnier-Wilson, “On Stroke,” p. 88 renders: ‘a lemnu demon,’ following
Stol (cf. p. 87, n. 46).
Finally, in a therapeutic ritual for the purpose of eradicating Anta ubba, Lugalurra and Hand-of -God(dess) the
incantation Lem-nu lem-nu is prescribed to chase away these evil spirits (TCL 6, 34 and //, edited by M. Geller,
Ancient Babylonian Medicine, p. 173-176).
178
Diagnostic Handbook, Tablet 27, 14’-15’ (see ad § 2 above) reads:
$
,
/
',,
-/ / ''
'
'$ ' '8 ,' '$ '
6 -- ,]
/
$
#
'?
'
;
# $ ; mark the phrase l pars ‘unstoppably’ instead of l ikkallû in the Nimrud parallel.
174
A i 12’. 6 '
66
= (3) 6%
# ?
66U
6
,2
A i 13’.
&,2
= (4)
!
*0
%
? ? + $
$
, , > 66 6 , -
§ 4’
A i 15’.
!(
= (2) 1
/
6
6
= (5)
=
#' $
& 2
:
A i 20’.
7> $ $
(
>/1,
A i 21’. ?E
F
6%
# ?
A i 19’.
2< /1
#
A
/ / 88
!
%
=
Z*
9
= (8) , > 66 6 1/1
6=
8L
A
= (9) 8 88
@1
7 >1,
#
, 6 -- ,
*
A i 24’.
#
;
= (7) , >> 6 , $= ,,
A i 22’. ? ?
#
,,
8 6 66%
(
= (4) 8%,
#
;
--1
8F' 6 6 6
-%
A i 18’.
,
26 %,
V %
(
= (3) 8%,%
= (10)
26
> 66 <
V
6%
A i 17’.
<
$$
57
''
A i 16’.
A i 23’. !
7
6
= (1)
= (6)
7> $$
8 6%6 , $=
A i 14’. '
= (5) ,,
#$
& 2
%/ > 7 6
,26288
! G+
Z
// >
A i 25’. Z Z
= (11) ,
§ 5’179
A i 26’.
--
% 1
:
,
,
> > / ,2 H 5
6 > U,
= (1)
> 66 <
,
>> /,2 255
A Col. II (not considered by Kinnier-Wilson)
G
A
§ 6’
B 1’.
= (1)
6
B#
B 2’.
= (2)
B 3’.
179
6
/ 6 >>
/
0
;
180
0
;
1,2 2//
F H2
6
'
6
0
/
181
,,
/
Cf. Diagnostic Handbook, Tablet 27, l.18, which runs identically but that the : is omitted.
Admittedly this normalization of the sequence B # is far out of step with usual orthography; in the present
context I cannot make sense of it otherwise; 1 ]51-] 8 , B > , for instance, does not fit the grammar.
181
A specific deity’s name would better fit in with the overall pattern of this phraseology; I cannot think up a
nominee whose name ends in / Q/ /, if this is how the first sign after the break may alternatively be
interpreted in the first place.
180
= (3) 8%, 6
60 %61
/
0
8%, 6
9B ?
B 4’.
$ 56
= (4)
;
/
9
2< /1
(
1 U 8 U
Z Z-L
B 5’.
,
= (5)
62 >H
--
% 1
§ 7’
A ii 0-1’a.
B 6’.
,
/%
0
B
;'
*0
, !
62>
,
182
, 8 ,, /
]6
6
;
6 6 >>
6
55 /
0
/ 1,2 2//
A ii 1’b-2’a.
B 7’.
,,
8%, 6
= (2)
0
,,
8%, 6
*
*
= (2)
/ 6 >>
= (4) %/ > *
;
;
1 ,2 2//
@ F
= (2)
,
8%,
//
/
8 88
66
$$
> 66 <
;
184
;
5 @%/
(
(
A ii 10’.
B 12’b.
/ 2< /1
!
!
$
$
5 +!
5 +!
6
= (1)
A ii 11’.
$
+
+
,
,
> 66 <
!
!
, -,
§ 9’
A ii 9’.
B 12’a.
$
8%, 6 @ /
8%, 6 @
,
= (5) >1
$$
183
()
(
+
@ F /
'@ F /
]
*
% 1
A
, -,
;
Y
A ii 8’.
B 11’b.
3
9 >
9 >
;
2/@ 6
X#
#
A ii 7’.
B 11’a.
,,
3
6> 7 6
F H2 '
F X HY 2
= (3)
@ 6
,
6% ,2>>
B
B
A ii 6’.
B 10’b.
182
6-
2 U
6
](
(
22
' 22 '
= (1)
A ii 5’.
B 9’b-10’a.
55 /
] F ' H 2'
F X HY. 2
6
6
,, 6 2< /1
§ 8’
A ii 4’.
B 9’a.
/ 6
,, 6
A ii 2’b-3’.
B 8’.
= (3)
6
> 66 <
'
' @ 6
= (1)
0
/'
185
-
/
6
' 7 66 6
/
A variant form of 6 >% , ‘frankincense;’ as for grammar it must be taken predicatively: ‘you [fumigate?
him] with
/% as frankincense’ / ‘you [fumigate? him] using as frankincense.’
183
There is hardly enough room for the expected
@ F / I
8%, 6 @ / .
184
In the evident absence of
a reading +
I
6%
is
not
very
plausible.
\
185
In all likelihood, a verbum tangendi is to be restored.
B 12’c-13’a. / /
] 6
= (3) //
7 66 6
/
& 6% 7 66 6 8%, 6
/
F H 2'
F H2
A ii 12’.
B 13’b.
= (4)
§ 10’
A ii 13’.
B 14’a.
-% &
= (1)
A ii 14’.
B 14’b.
= (2)
A ii 15’.
B 15’a.
= (3)
0
'4
> >
0
@ '@
@@
>1
>
0
9
>%> 6% 62ee
4
0
4 %
0
%
A ii 16’.
B 15’b.
= (4) 8%, 6
A ii 17’. F H 2'
B 15’c.
= (5)
A ii 18’.
B 16’a.
= (6)
8%, 6
2< /1
A ii 19’. 5 6 5 5
B 16’b. 5 6 5 5 '
= (7) 5 6 55
A ii 20’.
B 16’c.
A ii 21’.
A ii 22’.
A ii 23’.
§ 11’
A ii 24’.
G
A Col. V (not considered by Kinnier-Wilson)
§ 12’
A v 1’.186
A v 2’.
A v 3’.
§ 13’
A v 4’.
186
= l.8’ of hand-copy!
A
= (1)
A v 5’.
A v 6’.
= (3)
' > >
9
>%> 6% 62ee
F H2
A v 7’.
= (4) 8%, 6
187
A v 8’.
8%, 6
= (5)
A v 9’.
A v 10’.
A v 11’.
2< /1
;
D
8
= (8)
A v 12’. f
A v 13’. !:
, ,
(
= (10) -%,
-
§ 14’
A v 14’.
*0
50
,
50
,
= (1)
6
A v 15’.
6
6
= (2)
7 66 6
& 6% 7 66 6
A v 16’.
,
= (3)
A v 17’.
= (4) -% &
A v 18’. F
8%, 6
H2
= (5)
A v 19’.
8%, 6
= (6)
A v 20’.
A v 21’. F
A v 22’.
'
% 1
= (9)
2< /1
,
> 66 <
G
A
A Col. VI
§ 15’
A vi 1’.
#
/ 7
= (1)
-=
#
,2
(
-,2 2,,2 8%,%
A vi 2’. - /' '/ /
X Y
= (2) - // /% 8%, 6
A vi 3’. F H 2
= (3)
A vi 4’.
8%, 6
= (4)
2< /1
A vi 5’. G - 5 , , !
= (5) G
187
188
d
- 5 ,, 8 /
Traces allow for H'
Q/
gg 6
#
to be restored.
-%
,2 `
A vi 6’.
= (6)
!
&,2 ,
, $=
c
A vi 7’.
4
= (7)
!3
/, K
A vi 8’. +
$
$2>K
$
= (8) , -,
$$
> 66 <
§ 16’
A vi 9’.
#
#$
/ 7
= (1)
, 7 6
,
A vi 10’. ' ?'190
4 8L 8L
= (2) / e, 6%
/
8 %, 9%8 8
191
A vi 11’. F H 2
4 8L 8L
8%, 9%8 8 2< /1
= (3)
##
A vi 12’.
>U ,= ,
= (4)
A vi 13’.
,
/%
§ 17’
A vi 14’.
A vi 15’. 5 / >
#
= (2) 5 />%
,
%,,
/,
< 192
88 $$ 8%, 6
<
<
8%, 6
A vi 17’. (
/
gg / 6
6 >>
!
= (5) , // / >1
< 2< /1
'6 6
%6 6
A vi 18’. , / F/
-/
A vi 19’. ' ?* :
?E
$$
'
$
, -,
'0
0
@/
= (3)
(
4
// 5 4 e, 6% /
0
@/
;
/1
6% 44 >
'0
/ / 5'
F H '2
A vi 23’.
*
!
$$
()
0
= (2) / 1
,
> 66 <
+
= (1)
;
$
5 / , -,
A vi 22’.
G
:
% 1
+
§ 18’
A vi 21’.
;
>/1,
2 2$ 66
5 /
F B
8 66 ,
= (6) / ,1, <%> , 2 2$ 66
A vi 20’.
> 66 <
,,
>%7
#$
= (3)
188
$$
F H2 H
A vi 16’.
A vi 24’.
$
62> , -,
6 > 7
4 e,
= (1)
= (7)
+
"
% 1
= (5)
= (4) 6 -
&, 77 6189
88 $ $
;
44 >
5
5
*0
(
Kinnier Wilson: G I !( [ RQ/ !: I -%, ; however, ‘wool’ -or ‘a hair,’ %/ ,- hardly qualifies for being the
object of $= . Could !( here possibly represent a form of 5%< ‘to flay’?
189
A hitherto unrecognized occurrence of the extremely rare Dt stem of the verb 27 6 .
190
On the basis of the traces, restoring B
I > 6 < 6 >> might seem to deserve consideration, but that
‘happiness’ is not among the symptoms this kind of medical texts do treat. The reading ?* here and in l. 19’
below were proposed to me by M. Geller.
191 d
[UTU] or d[en-líl] are equally suitable candidates for filling the lacuna.
192
Stol, Epilepsy, p.6, n.19:
I
I e or / --U.
= (4)
6 - $ $ 6-
A vi 25’.
*0
8%,
= (5)
A vi 26’.
A vi 27’.
*0
0
2$ $
?0
'0
0
> 66 <
0
0
§ 19’
A vi 28’.
Translation
§ 1’
(1) [ ... ] (2) [ ... you put] inside [his] ear[s and the Evil] affecting his head [will be eradicated].
§ 2’
(1) [If a man while] walking down the street falls down on his face, his eyes turn open wide,
(2) he has no saliva and he cannot move his hands and feet of his own volition193 - (3) an Evil
One has seized that man, the creation of Antašubba is inseminating him. (4) Dung-of-Šeriš
and salicornia you dry, crush and mix with the milk (5) of a tabooed woman who has given
birth to a s[on], (6) you recite the (pertinent) incantation, rub him repeatedly, put (a bead of)
smelted iron (7) around his neck and the Evil affecting his head will be eradicated.
§ 3’
(1) If a man’s countenance constantly changes, his eyes keep rolling around, (2) he scratches
his lips and chin and blood is dripping from his nose (3) and cannot be kept in - an Evil One
has seized that man. (4) You crush ankin te and ašqul lu, (5) mix it with dove’s-blood, rub it
on him and he will recover.
§ 4’
(1) [If a man], having been struck [at] his [x], has (2) painful eyelids, is dripping pus : blood
from his nose, (3) his hands and feet hang down slack (4) and he cannot move his hands and
feet - (5) an Evil One has seized that man. In order to release him (6) you dry and crush
sulphur and tortoise’s-penis, (7) mix it with hematite blood,194 (8) and smear it over all his
skin; (9) then you take black-crow’s-head, (10) wrap it in the tendon of a dormouse, (11) put
it around his neck and he will recover.
§ 5’
(1) If the creation of Antašubba is inseminating a man [ ... ]
§ 6’
(1) [If a man ...] (2) his? belly constantly craves for [bread and beer?], he ea[ts? bre]ad? [and
drinks beer but ...?] - (3) [Hand of the raging deity, Deputy Power of his ci]ty-god?. In order to
[release him] from the hand of the raging deity [...] (4) [you wrap ...] cress, n nû, lapis lazuli
[...] in a leather bag (5) and place it around his neck; (finally) you fu[migate? him] using
kikkir nu for frankincense [and he will get well.]
§ 7’
(1) [If a man’s belly] incessantly craves [for bread and beer], yet fails to digest bread and beer,
[he keeps drinking] water [...] (2) [...] - Hand of the tenaceous?195 deity, Deputy Power of
193
/ %
is subject rather than direct object.
This will denote the reddish fluid which is secreted by iron ore when it has been brought into contact with
water, a substance, therefore, comparable to bog ore or limonite.
195
CAD, M-II, p. 304, s.v.
,, 6 suggests ‘ravaging’ as the most likely meaning of this vocable uniquely
known from this section of our text only, connecting it etymologically with the verb %6 . The morphological
weakness of this derivation is obvious. AHw., p. 688, s.v.
,, 6 translates ‘dem man vertraut’ (, %6 N),
194
Nin-[...]. (3) [In order to release him from the Hand] of the tenaceous? [deity you repeatedly
rub him] with black-dog’s-fat [and he will recover].
§ 8’
(1) If ditto and he will not get up until they make him do so196 (2) [and his belly] inces[santly]
craves for bread and beer - Hand of the valiant deity (3) Deputy Power of Nergal. In order to
[release him] from the Hand of the valiant deity you put (4) crow’s-[head] around his neck,
[repeatedly] rub [him] with sikillu (5) and tamarisk (processed) in oil [and he will recover].
§ 9’
(1) If a man lies in agony, he ... the wall (2) with his hands and feet, (3) he cannot sleep
during daytime nor at night - Hand of the Ferocious deity, (4) Deputy Power [of ...]
§ 10’
(1) If ditto and [his] face and his [...] flies?, (2) [he is unable] to talk, [his ears] (3) are
buz[zing, ...] - (4) Hand of the [...] deity, (5) [De]puty [Power of ...]. (6) In order to [release
him] from the Hand [of the ... deity] (7) [you ...] frit [...] (8-11) [...]
§ 11’
(1) If [ a man ...]
§ 12’
(1-3) [...]
§ 13’
(1) If ditto and [...] (2) [...] (3) [he is unable to] ta[lk ...] - (4) Hand of the [ x x ] deity,
[Deputy Power] (5) of x [ x. In order to release him from the Hand of the x deity] (6) x x [...]
(7) x-stone [...] (8) [you string] on a [linen] thr[ead ...] (9) and x [...] (10) of wool his feet [...]
§ 14’
(1) If ditto and he lies in a[gony ...], (2) all night long he cannot [sleep ...], (3) when drinking
water [...] (4) his face [ x x - Hand of the x x deity], (5) Depu[ty Power of x x ].
(6) In or[der to release him] fr[om the Hand of the x x deity] (7) [...] (8) x [...] (9) [you put]
around [his] neck [and he will recover].
§ 15’
(1) If a man in his illness constantly opens his mouth and he looses all the strength (2) in his
hands and feet - Hand of the enfeebling deity, Deputy (3) Power of Anum. (4) In order to
release him from the Hand of the enfeebling deity (5) you crush together she-lamb’s-x, deer’shorn, (6) and ankin te, (7) you rub him nine times in case (the patient) is male, seven times in
case (the patient) is female (8) and he will recover.
§ 16’
(1) If in his illness he experiences [recurrent] attacks of fever, he becomes numb and also (2)
has no sa[li]va - Hand of Z%qiqu, Deputy (3) Power of [ x ]197. In order to release him from
which is morphologically sound but at the same time a type of name to make the deity so designated the odd man
out amongst his fellow demons; unless the epithet were a euphemism. Now M. Geller suggested to me that the
form may rather have to be analysed as
,, 6U, participle Ntn of 6U, bringing the hapax recorded in CAD, K,
p. 104, s.v. 6U 12: IV/3 ‘to linger behind’ to bear upon this elusive epithet. It is said there of an evil demon
‘who lingers behind at the gate of the house’ (
>%> >1, ,,
6U; see now W. Schramm,
Beschwörungsserie Sag-ba, pp. 23, 43, 67 ad I, 49/50). Semantically
,,
6U is equivalent to
,, 6U. In
our medical context the ‘lingering about’ may have reference to the demon’s reluctance to be expelled from his
victim’s body. However, the absence of an expected plene writing ( , , 6 ) in each of its instances cannot
fail to make one hesitant in relishing this otherwise attractive solution unreservedly.
196
Probably meaning ‘help him do so,’ he being bedridden and unable to get up and go about of his own volition;
see § 2.
197
The context is compatible with Shamash -as the god of mantic arts and revelation, whose nocturnal avatar is
the dream- as well as Enlil, being the second member of the Supreme Tetrad, whose other members occupy the
rest of this column.
the Hand of Z%qiqu (4) you put x x and coral (5) around his neck; finally, you repeatedly rub
him with fox-grape and he will recover.
§ 17’
(1) If ditto and he transpires the sweat caused by the Lab%7u-demon excessively (2) and in
addition he experiences recurrent attacks of feverish shiver - Hand of the stubborn198 deity, (3)
Deputy Power of Ea. In order to release him from the Hand of the stubborn deity (4) you dry
with fire chameleon’s-fat and a singing (frog) that lives amidst the pebbles (5) and put (them
along with) tamarisk, asphalt, black sulphur, (6) yellow sulphur, and salt extracted from
woman’s-tongue around his neck; (7) finally, you repeatedly rub him with am ara and he will
recover.
§ 18’
(1) If ditto and despite your repeatedly rubbing [him] it (=disease) does not leave his body199,
(2) [there]af[ter]?, however, he lavishly spends on oil and then he stops transpiring the sweat
and it does leave him - (3) [Deputy Power] of Dingirma5. (4) [ x x-fa]t, horsefat? (5) [...] he
shall wash? his hands? and he will recover. (6) [Alternatively ... and] he will recover; (7)
[alternatively ... and] he will recover.
§ 19’
(1) [...] his [x-]s [ ... ]
198
199
I.e. unwilling to obey the exorcist’s orders, cf. § 7, 2 above.
is superfluously added.
Appendix 3 - ND 5497/13
(Published by kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.)
References
The bibliographical abbreviations used in the above article are in conformity with the
standards set by The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and W. von Soden, Akkadisches
Handwörterbuch. Here follows a list of those references that are not on record in either of
these.
-A. Attia and G. Buisson (Eds.), Advances in Mesopotamian Medicine from Hammurabi to
Hippocrates [Cuneiform Monographs 37], Leiden: Brill, 2009.
-B. Böck, “Sourcing, Organizing, and Administering Medicinal Ingredients,” in: K. Radner
and E. Robson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford 2011, pp. 690705.
-M. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice, Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell,
2010.
-N. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik [Alter Orient und Altes Testament 43],
Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.
-J. Kinnier-Wilson and E. Reynolds, “On Stroke and Facial Palsy in Babylonian Texts,” in:
Disease in Babylonia [Cuneiform Monographs 36], Leiden: Brill, 2007, pp. 67-99.
-M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia [Cuneiform Monographs 2], Groningen: Styx Publications,
1993.
-Texte zur Heilkunde [Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge, Bd. 5],
Güterloh; Güterloher Verlagshaus, 2010.