Manuscripts
A = RA 15 pl. 76
Copy : Scheil 1918 pl. 76.
Edition: Scheil 1918.
Comments: George 2016: 165; Böck 2011: 697; Stol 2011: 400–402.
Content: Mainly one-lined prescriptions against snakebites (obv. 1’–13’) and scorpion stings (obv. 14’–25’), plus two fragmentary prescriptions for treating a horse (rev. 0’–4’ and 5’–8’).
B = BAM 42
Copy: Köcher 1963a no. 42.
Edition: Transliteration on the BabMed website; Geller 2014: 18–19 note 26; Heeßel 2010c: 153–54 edited the last part of the text.
Comments: Scurlock 2014: 469–71; Finkel 1999: 213 and note 3.
Content: Prescriptions for illnesses of the airways (obv. 1–12, 13–23, 24–35, 36–41, rev. 42–49, 50–56, 57–60, 61–62) and snakebite (rev. 63–68). Only the relevant prescriptions against snakebite are edited below.
C = AMT 92,7
Copy: Thompson 1923 pl. 92 no. 7.
Edition: Transliteration on the BabMed website.
Content: Small fragment containing the remains of three prescriptions, two of which are against snakebite (obv. 6’–7’, 8’; cf. obv. 1’–5’).
Transliteration
Obverse A
Reverse A
Colophon
General Observations
Ms A was copied by Kiṣir-Aššur and is not duplicated exactly in either of the other mss. As such, it serves as the main manuscript for this edition. It was copied, transliterated, and translated in Scheil 1918. However, Scheil’s copy is problematic in several places (see the commentary below). Unfortunately, Scheil provided no inventory number, collection name, or other indications as to the location of the tablet. Consequently, it is currently considered lost and Scheil’s copy is the basis for my emendations of what I assume must be incorrectly copied signs. As the majority of the incorrect signs appear to have either too many or too few strokes, it is possible that Scheil copied the tablet according to a picture without further collation. Furthermore, it is difficult to interpret whether the right edge on the obverse and reverse was the slightly damaged edge of the tablet or if ms A broke off from a multi-columned tablet. I assume that the manuscript was single-columned. For further discussion of this text, see Section 3.5 and Chapter 4.
The obverse of ms A contains prescriptions related to applying or anointing various substances onto bites and stings or drinking and eating certain potions or substances. Although several plants remain unidentified, it is possible that the effect of applying these various plants could in some instances induce diffusion so that the venom would be (partially) extracted from the bite/sting. Note that some of the same plants used in individual prescriptions in ms A-C against snakebite are also used in the single potion (mašqītu) consisting of 13 plants that are drunk in wine against snakebite in BAM 176 (see Geller 2014: 18 note 26).
The translation of prescriptions ending in (verbal form)-ma TI/ina-eš are translated as “he (drinks/eats/etc.) …, and he will live”, although it should be noted that Scurlock has argued that these constructions designate “a subordinate ‘if’ clause” (Scurlock and Andersen 2005: xvi with further references). I have left this possible distinction out of the translations, as it would make the content too confusing.
Ms A has dividing lines after obv. 11’ and 13’, which separate the entry in obv. 12’–13’. This entry is the only prescription on the obverse that is longer than a single line. Ms A breaks off after obv. 25’. The beginning of the reverse of ms A is broken. Dividing lines occur after rev. 4’ and rev. 8’. The colophon in obv. 9’–15’ breaks off after rev. 15’, although it remains uncertain if more lines once existed.
Two plant lists, CT 14 pl. 23 (K. 9283) and STT 92, which list ingredients, maladies, and methods for administering the drugs, partially duplicate individual lines of ms A. Both plant lists are unedited, although see Böck 2014a: 156 for STT 92. CT 14 pl. 23 generally contains Babylonian sign forms. Of note, both lists provide the lines on ms A obv. 7’–11’ in roughly the same order with infinitive verbal forms (see below). It therefore seems that the lines in ms A originally originated from a plant list.
Commentary
Obverse
The verb našāku ordinarily has the thematic vowels a/u and it is rarely attested with i/i (CAD N/2: 53–54; CDA: 244; AHw: 758). Ms C has /i/ as the thematic vowel, which indicates the verb had undergone a change (see Kouwenberg 2010: 77–78; von Soden 1995: 141 §87d). The passage from ms C is one of the only instances quoted in the CAD.
For the urbatu-plant, see obv. 9’.
The plant used in ms B-C is úIGI-lim called imḫur-līm “it cures a thousand (illnesses)” and is associated with the errû-colocynth(?) (CAD I-J: 118–19; see CMAwR 2: 511; CMAwR 1: 470). Imḫur-līm is described in Šammu šikinšu as having the tendrils of the qiššû-gourd, the seed of the ḫurātu-plant, a bitter as well as soft root, and red-golden offshoots (see Stadhouders 2012: 4 §23–24, 8 §14; Stadhouders 2011: 10 §23–24, 19 §14). It can be used against every kind of sore and “‘the Furious One’, a deputy (šanû) of Adad” (ibid.; see also BAM 379 col. ii 55’ in Stadhouders 2012: 16; Stadhouders 2011: 35). The plant is listed in the “Dreckapotheke” section of Uruanna as “dust from the tracks of a wolf”, line 23: … [SAḪA]R ki-bi-is UR.BAR.RA (Rumor 2017: 7, 26 line 23). Imhur-līm also appears in BAM 1 col. i 58 col. ii 50 (Attia and Buisson 2012: 27–28; CAD T: 62).
The plant list STT 92 col. i 5 probably had a similar entry: Ú IGI-lim : Ú ZÚ [MUŠ : x x x x x x x(?)], “The plant imḫur-līm : a plant (for) [snake] bite […]”.
The reconstruction [gišŠE].NÁ.A in ms B seems to fit the line, and is also followed by Heeßel (2010c: 154) and Geller (2014: 18 note 26). The šunû-plant was likely a shrub or perhaps a “chaste tree” (CAD Š/3: 309–10; see also Freedman 2017: 137 line 51’, 138 line 74’; CMAwR 2: 514; CMAwR 1: 236, 473 with further references). In Uruanna’s “Dreckapotheke” section, uḫūlu qarnānû is equated with the names šunû and baltu (Rumor 2017: 20, 31 line 115; see also CMAwR 1: 473; Geller 2005: 3). In the pharmacological-therapeutic compendium BAM 1, the šunû-plant can be crushed in oil and anointed onto the affected area to treat an illness ([DA]B šá-da-ni, possibly a type of fever, see Bácskay 2018: 146ff.), and the root can be crushed into oil and drunk in good beer against suālu-cough or ḫaḫḫu-phlegm (Attia and Buisson 2012: 26 col. i 40, 27 col. ii 31, 28 col. ii 44, 30 col. iv 14).
The ṣaṣumtu-plant in ms B rev. 65 is connected to the healing goddess Gula and is stated in Uruanna to be her plant (Böck 2014a: 158–59; see also CAD Ṣ: 116; AHw: 1987; CMAwR 2: 514). The plant is unidentified, but according to BAM 1 it is effective against ḫimiṭ ṣēti if drunk in good beer and anointed onto the affected area, against ašû-illness if drunk in good beer, and it can be crushed into hot ghee and anointed onto the affected area (Attia and Buisson 2012: 26 col. i 49, 27 col. ii 3 and col. ii 19; see also CMAwR 1: 234, 472). In Uruanna’s “Dreckapotheke” section, the plant is referred to as “the head of a black raven” and “wool of a virgin ewe” (Rumor 2017: 19, 22, 30 line 103, 31 line 123). Another pharmacological text describes the plant as a drug “for keeping vermin out of a man’s house. You put it in water and sprinkle the house with it” (Stadhouders 2012: 17 col. iv 20–21; Stadhouders 2011: 37 col. iv 20–21). It was believed to be effective to deter wild animals (Böck 2014a: 162–163, 168). The ṣuṣumtu-plant’s name may refer to something going out (waṣû), perhaps indicating some excreta (see Böck 2014a: 159). These excreta could be from the plant itself or perhaps the wound once the plant was applied.
The kamkadu-plant in ms B rev. 65 is unidentified (see CAD K: 123–24; CMAwR 2: 511; Geller 2014: 84; CMAwR 1: 470; Kinnier-Wilson 2005: 47). In sufficient quantities, the plant was considered a bad omen and the 59th tablet of Šumma ālu line 35 states: “If kamkadu-plant becomes thick, that field will be abandoned” (see also the 55th tablet line 5; Freedman 2017: 99, 103, 126). The “Dreckapotheke” section of Uruanna refers to the plant as “an išqippu-earthworm” or perhaps išqippu-bird (Rumor 2017: 5, 25 line 8; see CAD I–J: 261). The second interpretation is perhaps more plausible as in BAM 1 the plant is placed on a wound against the problem “spur(?) of the bird” (ḫi-dar MUŠEN, CAD Ḫ: 194; see Attia and Buisson 2012: 28 col. ii 54).
The writing GIG refers to simmu “skin eruption, lesion” (CAD S: 276–78; Böck 2014a: 22–24). This is the only prescription in ms A and C referring to the bite as a simmu.
For the final verbal form, see also CAD K: 239–240.
Ms B rev. 67’ comprises two entries. The second half of the line does not appear in ms A. Geller (2014: 18–19 note 26) reads ms B rev. 67’b as follows: DIŠ MIN gišmi-URU₄-iš-gišMÁ-ra! ina Ù-šú GAR.GAR-ma né-eš, “If ditto, you keep applying mirišmara during his sleep, and he will get better” (see Heeßel 2010c: 154).
The reading ⸢ḪÁD?.DU?⸣ remains tentative. Heeßel (2010c: 154) interpreted this as an instruction to the reader similar to SÚD (see also Geller 2014: 18–19 note 26). I read this as an adjective, which is also a possibility with this Sumerogram, as the process of drying would have taken too long in relation to the presumed immediate use of such a prescription.
The plant list CT 14 pl. 23 obv. 9 may also prescribe the root of the pillû-plant, to be placed around the neck of the patient: [Ú SUḪU]Š?? NAM.TAR.⸢RA⸣ : Ú ZÚ MUŠ : ina GÚ-šú GAR-an, “[…] pillû-plant : a plant (for) snakebite : you place (it) around his neck”.
In this and the following lines in ms A and the partial duplicate CT 14 pl. 23 (see below), the sign ZÚ is written for “bite” nišku. This word is normally written ZÚ.KUD for našāku literally “to split the teeth” (Borger 2004: 256; see CAD N/2: 281–82).
The plant urbatu : a plant (for) snakebite : bind (it in) a ḫimû-wad over the bite.
[… “Dog]’s tongue” : a plant for the bite of snake and dog : make the man consume and drink (it).
It is possible that STT 92 col. i 11 should be restored according to CT 14 pl. 23 obv. 11, see Böck 2014a: 156.
For the translation of the infinitives, see below.
This prescription and the following two (ms A obv. 8’–10’) make use of a so-called ḫimû that is interpreted as a “wad made of reeds, used against snake bite” (CAD Ḫ: 193–94). The majority of references therefore seem to originate from ms A and the plant list CT 14 pl. 23. According to the CAD (Ḫ: 194), it is possible that the word refers to “a specific form or arrangement in which certain sedge-like plants were used” (see Thompson 1949: 10 note 3). According to this interpretation, the plant used must have been bound to form the “wad”, which is the favoured translation in CAD (U-W: 212b): “to be bound in a wad over the bite”.
The bed and the bedroom were places of privacy in which the patient was frequently located (e.g., Stol 1997: 408; van der Toorn 1996: 60–61). Therefore, the plant may have been used here to surround the bed in order to ensure that further evil could not befall the patient, but at the same time to treat the area in which the patient was located. Although the plant could be used medically, the CAD (A/2: 233) cites a use “for conciliating one’s god”, which may partially explain the effect of the plant, namely to ensure a benign relationship with the divine power who possibly sent the snake that bit the patient.
It is unclear how a ḫimû-wad could be used to surround a bed. The other possible solution is to translate “to wrap (up)” (CAD L: 73), although this does not solve the problem.
The šakirû-plant is unidentified, but may be related to “henbane” (CMAwR 2: 514; see CMAwR 1: 472; CAD Š/1: 167–68). The name was also part of a plant called úŠAKIR dŠá-maš that is equated with another unknown plant called pīru-plant in Uruanna (CAD P: 420), and provided with the “Dreckapotheke” name “tongue of a tiqqû-ox” (Rumor 2017: 13, 20 line 62). Perhaps accidentally, bull saliva was used against a scorpion sting in ms A obv. 17’ (see below). Note also that the Sumerogram ŠAKIR is listed as part of plant names in Uruanna, read as PA-PA-a-nu, which was used in ms A in obv. 10’ (see STT 391 obv. 16–17). Various plants resembling the šakirû-plant were listed as useful against horse colic (kīs libbi), bennu-epilepsy, and maškadu-illness (i.e., abdominal pains and motoric problems) in Šammu šikinšu (Stadhouders 2012: 3 §15’–17’, 4 §25’; Stadhouders 2011: 8–9 §15’–17’, 11 §25’). A possible variant of horse colic was treated in ms A on the reverse (see below).
The kurkānû-plant is unidentified (see CMAwR 2: 512; CMAwR 1: 471 with references). The plant could be used against, e.g., aḫḫāzu- and amurriqānu-jaundice (Böck 2014a: 125 note 106), renal and rectal problems, and possibly also against maškadu-illness (Geller 2005: 42–43, 46–47, 88–89, 162–63, 190–91, 202–207, 236–37, 258–59). Uruanna’s “Dreckapotheke” section provides kurkānû with the name “dust of the latrine” (Rumor 2017: 20, 30 line 108).
The writing u ina in ms A is peculiar and cannot be explained. It may be due to a mistake by Kiṣir-Aššur, or the copy may be incorrect. I have chosen to emend the line and remove the {u}.
It is unclear if EŠ.MEŠ in these lines and ms A obv. 14’ and 18’ denotes a variant of a G-stem or a Gtn- or D-stem of pašāšu (see CAD P: 247–49). It is translated as a G-stem throughout this edition (ibid.: 247).
The ṣurāru (EME.DIR and EME.ŠID) is an unspecified lizard (CAD Ṣ: 254–56; see George 2016: 165; Freedman 2006a: 166 and note for line 1, 204 and note for line 1). Although lizards are attested in medicinal prescriptions, they are not frequently used (see George 2016: 167; Scurlock 2014: 407–8, 410–12, 415–16, 452, 464, 525–26, 534, 546, 675, 677; Geller 2005: 40–41, 100–101; CAD Ṣ: 255). They were considered ominous and appear in the 32nd tablet of Šumma ālu (CAD Ṣ: 254–55; see Freedman 2006: 164–189). The 33rd tablet of Šumma ālu contains omens concerning the pizallūru-gecko (MUŠ.GIM.GURUN.NA) (Freedman 2006a: 202–213). Such ominous entries appearing consecutively as ṣurāru and pizallūru are also observed in the first subseries of Sa-gig (Heeßel 2001–02: 32–33). The blood of the pizallūru-gecko is also used in ms A obv. 18’, and the appearance of these ingredients together may have been influenced by the order expressed in the omen series.
The reason for applying the blood of lizards and, later in ms A obv. 18’, of geckos to a scorpion sting may result from the gecko’s, and perhaps also the lizard’s, ability to kill certain scorpions and even tolerate their venom (Zlotkin et al. 2003). If this is true of the various species used in these prescriptions, it may have been believed that the blood of an animal that was capable of overcoming the venom and defeating the powerful and venomous scorpion provided the user with the same effect. An omen in Šumma ālu refers to the ominous event of a gecko killing a snake in a man’s house (Freedman 2006a: 208–209 line 75’).
For “the surface of the sting” (pan ziqti), see CAD Z: 132; CAD P: 89–90.
The imperative ki-sir!-ma likely stems from kesēru “to block, dam a river, make a pavement” (CAD K: 313–314), although the only medical example quoted in the CAD relates to tampons in the nose. Similar use of the imperative in prescriptions is observed in, e.g., OB medical texts, see George 2016: 166. Another possibility would be to read ke-sir!-ma as a stative where the plural ZÌ.MEŠ is treated as a collective singular (“flour blocks …”). It is difficult to account for another verb, such as kaṣāru.
For this line, see also George 2016: 165.
The ingredient billatu (DIDA) seems to be a dry substance used in relation to the preparation of (instant) beer and it can be crushed and eaten in medical texts (CAD B: 228; see CMAwR 2: 509 and CMAwR 1: 54, 469 with references). As there is no mention of a fluid into which the billatu can be mixed, the final sign should be read GU₇!. This differs slightly from the translation by Böck (2011: 697) of this line: “If a scorpion has stung a man, cut the head of a pizallurtu-gecko and smear the blood on the wound, (the patient) should drink instant beer”.
The line ends somewhat abruptly without the expected ina-eš.
The transliteration becomes highly uncertain after GEŠTIN. The next signs look like lu ⸢x?⸣ lal and thereafter GAR-⸢an⸣ ina-eš. It is difficult to make sense of these signs in their current state, but it is possible the LU actually comprised ZÌ and a broken MEŠ. The reading ⸢NÍG⸣.LÁ GAR-⸢an⸣ in ms A obv. 20’ was established in the CAD (N/2: 49). The sentence was likely abbreviated, but one would expect a preposition and another verbal form, such as balālu. Finally, we should expect GAR-⸢an⸣-ma ina-eš.
Reverse
Stol (2011: 387–92) also treated a comparable prescription found on BAM 159 col. v 33–36 (see Parys 2014: 23, 34–35, 60–61; Scurlock 2014: 498–99) that is quoted here for comparison: úzi-im-KÙ.BABBAR úzi-im-KÙ.GI úár-zal-lá 34 úSAR-A.ŠÀ úel-lat-A.ŠÀ ú⸢ka-su⸣-u 35 úTUR.A.NI SUḪUŠ úTUR.A.NI 8 Ú ki-is ŠÀ-bi 36 šá ANŠE.KUR.RA i-na GEŠTIN SUR ina na-ḫir GÙB-šú DUB-ak-ma TI, “(list of ingredients), 8 plants for horse kīs libbi (colic). You pour it into its left nostril in pressed wine and it will recover”. See also STT 93 obv. 35’–37’; BAM 309 col. i’ 1’–4’.
The description that the ingredients are first “pounded, crushed” sâku (SÚD) and thereafter “crushed in” a fluid ḫašālu (GAZ) are also found in the second horse prescription in BAM 159 col. v 37–47 (Stol 2011: 394; see Parys 2014: 23, 34–35, 60–61; Scurlock 2014 498–99). Stol (2011: 394) translates these verbal forms as: “… wirst du pulverisieren (und) zusammen mit … wirst du (es) zerstoßen(?)”, and Scurlock (2014: 499) translates: “you grind … you crush (everything) with …”.
Similarly to the method of application in ms A rev. 4’, this mixture is administrated into the “left nostril” of the horse (see above).
Stol proposed that the doubtful signs after ša, which read BU ḪI LU SU, could describe the illness afflicting the horse. The end of the sentence can therefore be read: ša … DAB-su SIG₅-iq, i.e., “to make well that which has seized it (i.e., the horse)”. Stol (2011: 401 and note 254) suggested reading the signs bu-ḫi as qíd-ḫi for a relatively unknown illness qidḫu “Entzündung”(?) that is perhaps read saḫḫu(?) (AHw: 921; CAD Q: 251; CDA: 289). Another reading suggested by Stol (2011: 401 note 254) is sír-ḫi for ṣir-ḫi spelling the poorly attested illness ṣirḫu “Fieberglut” from the verb ṣarāḫu “to heat, scorch” (CAD Ṣ: 98; AHw: 1083; see ṣiriḫtu “inflammation”, in CAD Ṣ: 207; AHw: 1104–5). This illness, however, is attested as an animal illness in a namburbi-ritual edited by Caplice (1970: 120 line 64; see also Stol 2011: 383), who translated ṣirḫu as “dirge”, a well-attested similar word (CAD Ṣ: 205–6) derived from another similar verb ṣarāḫu “to sing a lamentation” (see CAD Ṣ: 99–100). Both meanings could fit the presumed colic-like state of the horse that this prescription aimed to cure. Some illnesses affecting the libbi “stomach, abdomen, heart”, and possibly also the illness kīs libbi, were connected to depressed emotional states (Cadelli 2000: 363–65, 372–73; see Parys 2014: 4–5; Chalendar 2013: 14–17; Steinert 2012: 232–33; Böck 2010a: 69; cf. note 205). Furthermore, kīs libbi could potentially turn into māmītu (Scurlock and Andersen 2005: 508) and, by extension, the illness could produce fever. If the spelling here was supposed to designate ṣirḫu, both verbs ṣarāḫu “to heat” and “to sing a lamentation” could fit the symptoms of this presumably colic-like illness.
The ù over u for a conjunction seems unusual in this context, and syntactically we would expect E₁₁-ma instead of u. It is not impossible that ù marked an alternative to the first verbal form (von Soden 1995: 212 §117c) or maybe a disjunctive statement, although this would ordinarily be spelled ū lū (ibid.: 258). This cannot be properly explained, and the sign cannot be emended to fit the context better at present. I translate ù as “and”, but the spelling may have had a different function.
Scheil recognized that the catch-line was connected to the inners (ŠÀ) rising (E₁₁) (Scheil 1918: 77, 79). As the word “stomach” libbu (ŠÀ) and the sign for “to go up/go down” elû/warādu (E₁₁) are mentioned twice in the catch-line, it is likely that it quotes a symptom description concerned with nausea. However, such diagnoses often use a verb related to vomiting, such as arû (Scurlock and Andersen 2005: 126–28; Cadelli 2000: 337; see, e.g., CAD A/2: 316; CAD E: 121; CAD P: 208–9). No mention of vomit is made in this catch-line. A number of signs in the line cannot be properly read without emendation. Scheil read RAT RAT over the emended ú!-rad, and a-rik(?) as the final two signs. The first of the final signs is a, but the last sign is unclear. I have emended it to ⸢lam?⸣. By emending RAT RAT to ú!-rad and a-rik(?) to a-lam? it is possible to provide each instance of È with its opposite meaning, i.e. “if a man’s! stomach rises (to vomit) and settles!, (and) his stomach (after having) settled rises(?) (again)”. This would provide a description of continuing states of nausea. However, this interpretation is not without problems. Verbal forms of elû with initial a- are only attested as imperatives and second person singular forms, and these mainly stem from OB examples (see CAD E: 116). As a result, the spelling cannot be explained here, but I fail to see other interpretations.
The catch-line remains without duplicates or parallels.