[RA 102-2008]

71

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS IN OLD BABYLONIAN MEDICAL INCANTATIONS1 BY

Nathan WASSERMAN

“So bist du vielleicht der Erkenner des Blutegels ? fragte Zarathustra ; und du gehst dem Blutegel nach bis auf die letzten Gründe, du Gewissenhafter ?” F. Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Der Blutegel

A 13th-century Latin bestiarium from England reads : The Leech is a water worm which is called so because it drinks blood. It traps drinkers, moving smoothly to their throats or sticks to another part, drinking blood. And when it is full of blood it vomits what it drank on purpose to drink it again. No age, escape or medicine helps against this voluptuousness. The Leech is the Devil because it drinks blood, that is, it attracts itself the souls of sinners. Regarding it Solomon said : “The leech hath two daughters, crying, ‘Give, give. There are three things that are never sated, yea, four things say not It is enough [Prov. 30 : 15]. Desire which is not sated, and incessant avarice. There is no medicament against cupidity : the more you drink the more you thirst.2 As we shall see, the horrid description of this moralistic medieval text is surprisingly accurate, and fits the behavior and feeding activity of the parasitic, blood-sucking (i.e. not predatory) kind of leeches described in modern zoological manuals. This paper, of course, is not devoted to medieval sources but to ancient Mesopotamian ones. I will argue that Old Babylonian physicians and sorcerers were aware of these parasitic invertebrates, and regarded them as harmful creatures against which magic counteraction is necessary. The possibility that

1. This study was conducted in the framework of the project SEAL (“Sources of Early Akkadian Literature. A Text Corpus of Babylonian and Assyrian Literary Texts in the 3rd and 2nd Millennia BC”) funded by the GermanIsraeli Foundation For Scientific Research and Development and run by M. P. Streck (Leipzig) and the present author (Jerusalem). A preliminary and much shorter version of this paper was delivered at the conference “Words and Forces : Nature in Literature and Magic in Ancient Mesopotamia and Neighboring Lands”, held in February 2008 at the Hebrew University. A second version of this paper was read at the seminar “Literature and Culture in the Ancient Mediterranean : Greece, Rome, and the Near East”, held at Venice International University in November 2008. I wish to thank M. Geller for his willingness to read an early version of the paper and for his pertinent critique. Thanks are also due to Jean-Marie Durand, Paris, for discussing with me the Mari material, to Tallay Ornan, Jerusalem, for her helpful comments regarding the visual material treated in the paper, and to Martin Worthington, Cambridge, for referring me to a few bibliographical references. Naturally, all responsibility for the arguments raised here remains the author’s alone. 2. Sanguisuga uermis aquatilis sic dicta, quod sanguinem sugat. Potantibus enim insidiatur, cumque illabitur faucibus uel uspiam adhaeserit, sanguinem haurit ; et cum nimio cruore tumuerit, euomit quod hausit, ut recentiorem denuo sugat. Sanguisuga est diabolus, eo quod sugat sanguinem, id est in se traiiciat animas miserorum. Huius iuxta quod Salomon dicit : Duae filiae sunt insatiabiles, incessanter clamantes affer, affer ; libido incessanter, auaritia incessantius. Illi enim id est libidini aetate || uel fuga, aut aliquo medicamento succurritur. Auaritiae uero nullo medicamento subuenitur. Quia quo plus sunt potae, plus sitiuntur aquae. Sanguisugae natas numquam plene satiatas ; obrue luxuriam, destrue auaritiam (13 cent. England bestiarium, Westminster Library ms. 22. My thanks go to Dr. Ilya Dines, who has shared with me his vast knowledge of medieval bestiaries). Revue d’Assyriologie, volume CII (2008), p. 71-88

7 72 2

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

leeches were seen positively as well, as sometimes happens in pharmacology, and used medicinally in ancient Babylonia, perhaps as a means of venesection, will be discussed as well. By way of anticipation it can be said that the available evidence regarding this question is too meager to allow a definitive answer. Yet this study shows that even if not used medicinally, leeches were seen as specifically related to the healing goddess, Gula. The texts that stand at the core of the discussion - YOS 11, 3 ; YOS 11, 5 : 1-8 ; and YOS 11, 5 : 9-14 - are not medical texts, strictly speaking, but literary incantations. These Old Babylonian incantations deal with or mention tūltum, a worm. As I will show, in two of the incantations (YOS 11, 3 and YOS 11, 5 : 1-8), perhaps also in the third, this worm is clearly a leech. Although it is impossible to offer an exact date for these literary texts, their epigraphy, orthography, lexica and style suggest an early stage of Old Babylonian. As such, they are, to my knowledge, the oldest known written sources in antiquity mentioning leeches. But the first issue that must be tackled is whether leeches existed in the region of Mesopotamia during the 2nd millennium BCE. Recent biological studies have shown that there are at least five species of leech, classed under the blood-sucking genus Hirudo, of which the best known is Hirudo medicinalis. 3 Geographically, these leeches can be found today in Transcaucasia, Iran, southeastern Europe, Turkey, and North Africa.4 Taking into account that these aquatic and amphibious creatures are very sensitive to climatic changes,5 the geographic distribution of sanguivorous leeches in antiquity is hard to determine. Yet, the present distribution of leeches indicates that at least some species of the Hirudo were found in the Near East four or five thousand years ago, especially as these creatures were known to exist in Ancient Egypt and Greece.6 The incantations, for which various new readings are offered below, were first published by van Dijk more than twenty years ago. They have not been treated much since then. In particular, it was not recognized that the “worm” mentioned in two of these incantations is not merely a maggot, but a kind of parasitic leech.7 The reason, it would seem, for missing or overlooking the presence of leeches in these texts is, paradoxically, precisely the abundance of Akkadian terms for annelids. A case in point is Ḫḫ XIV 249-289, which contains a long list of terms for invertebrates - more than a dozen different nouns, none of which clearly designate a leech.8 Still, a specific Akkadian lemma for a leech is known : ilqu(m), or ilqitu(m), a rare word, etymologically connected to Heb. ʿlûqâ with cognates in other Semitic languages, 9 attested in late medical texts.10 Thus, since ilqu(m) was not attested in the Old Babylonian incantations under discussion (or any of the wide range of specific terms for annelids attested in the lexical material), but only the general term tūltum, “worm” - there has been no attempt to 3. In this paper all references to leeches are to the zoological type of Hirudo medicinalis, unless otherwise stated. The reason for this is simple : Hirudo medicinalis is the most widely studied and best described kind of leech in modern zoological literature. I do not claim that tūltum, in the sense of leech, can be identified precisely as Hirudo medicinalis, though it is not unlikely. 4. Trontelj/Utevsky 2004 and Utevsky/Trontelj 2005. 5. See Kutschera/Pfeiffer/ Ebermann 2007. 6. Whitaker et al. 2003, 133. As for Islamic medicine, see Pormann/Savage-Smith 2007, 121 : “There is little

evidence that leeches were much used, if at all, for the extraction of blood [in Islamic Medicine] despite the fact that they were common in Greek medicine and later European practice. Arabic medical writers, such as al-Zahrāwī and Ibn Sīnā, included short paragraphs on leeches, but the material is derived from the translated Greek writings”.

7. See Foster 1993, 119 and Veldhuis 1993, 45 – both simply translate as “worm”. 8. Landsberger 1934, 125-130. 9. van der Toorn 1999, 887, s.v. Vampire. 10. See AHw 373a, s.v. ilqu “Blutegel”, and CAD I/J, 88 (with CAD Q, 81, s.v. qanduppu).

2008

73

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

define these creatures further, for example through the surrounding context. To this textual situation one may add the fact that the entire practice of bloodletting in different forms has not thus far been clearly identified in cuneiform medical recipes and compendia.11 Assyriologists, therefore, have not looked for leeches in this context and have failed to recognize that in YOS 11, 3 and YOS 11, 5 : 1-8 tūltum designates a leech - although the description of the worm feeding on blood is straightforward and seems clearly to point to leeches. In order to avoid confusion, it should be clear that I do not argue that all attestations of tūltum mean “leech”. My claim here rather is that “worm” was used as an umbrella term for different sorts of annelids, including leeches. In the article tūltum in CAD T, it is possible to differentiate three semantic categories within this lemma : (a) worms that are designators of decay and decomposition ;12 (b) worms that live as parasites, inside the human body or free-living in human habitat, causing damage and different diseases ;13 (c) worms that are used metaphorically to designate wormlike organs and natural phenomena, like the tooth-nerve, sperm fluid, a group of stars forming a worm-like pattern, or the fading tail of shooting star.14 To these three groups I suggest adding a fourth semantic category, namely tūltum designating a leech. So far this meaning is restricted to Old Babylonian medical incantations. Let us now examine the textual evidence. The texts are presented (edition, translation, and philological commentary), followed by a discussion : first YOS 11, 5 : 1-8 and YOS 11, 3, and then YOS 11, 5 : 9-14. I. THE BLOOD-SUCKING INCANTATIONS

WORM

IN

OLD

BABYLONIAN

MEDICAL

YOS 11, 5 : 1-8 1 dA-nu ir-ḫi-a-am ša-me-e ša-mu-ú er-ṣe-tam ul-d[u-n]im 2 er-ṣe-tum ú-li-id bu-ša-am bu-šum ú-li-id lu-ḫu-ma-a-am 3 lu-ḫu-mu-um ú-li-id zu !-ba ! zu !-u[b]-bu ú-li-id tu-ul-tam 4 tu-ul-tum mārat(DUMU !.SAL !) dGu-la lu-ul-lu-um-tam lu-ub-bu-ša-at da-mi ḫa-ab-ra-at 5 a-⸢ak ?⸣-[ki ?]-lu da-mi ṣe-eḫ-ri-im ú-pé-el-li-a-am i-ni-i-šu 6 id-⸢di ši-ip-tam dDa-mu ù dGu-la⸣ ú-ni-ra ⸢tu-ul-tam⸣ [e ?-bi ?]-⸢tam ?⸣/ iṭ-bu-uḫ-šu-⸢nu-ti⸣ a-na ṣ[e ?]-eḫ ? !-r[i ?-im ?] 7 ip-te pí-i-šu iṣ-ṣa-bat tu-la-a-am iš-ši-i-ma i-ni-šu i-[ni ?-iq ?] 8 ši-ip-tum ú-ul ia-a-tum ši-pa-at dDa-mu ù dGu-la dD[a-m]u [i]d-di-ma a-na-ku el-qé 1 Anu begat the sky, the sky bore the earth, 2 The earth bore the stench, the stench bore the mud, 3 The mud bore the fly, the fly bore the “worm”. 4 The “worm”, the daughter of Gula, is clad in a l.-garment, is thick with blood, 5 The de[vour]er of the child’s blood is reddening his eyes. 6 Damu cast the incantation and Gula slew the [thi]ck “worm”, slaughtered them for the (sake of the) c[hil]d, 11. Geller 2004, but see further below. 12. It is hard to escape the association to OB Gilg., in which Gilgamesh refuses to bury his dead companion

a-di tu-ul-tum im-qú-tam i-na ap-pí-šu “... until a maggot dropped from his nostril” (George 2003, 278 : ii 9’). Note that in SB XII kalmatum, not tūltum is used to designate the decomposition of the cadaver (George 2003, 732 : 97).

13. [uḫ?-gu-du-mu] = [tu?-ul?-ti?] qí-na-ti-ia, “[the worm] of my anus” ; [uḫ-tu-ra-mu] = [tu-ul-]ti mu-ur-ṣ[í-

ia], “[the wor]m of my sickness” - Ugumu Bil. E : 10, 13.

14. This is perhaps the meaning of the obscure passage Bab 2, 275 (K. 4546) : 2 (cited in CAD T, 466b 1a) : [šumma kakkabu ana tu]-ul-ti [itūr], “[If a star turns into a w]orm”.

7 74 4

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

7 He opened his mouth, took the (mother’s) breast, raised his eyes, (began to) s[uck]. 8 The incantation is not mine, (it is) the incantation of Damu and Gula. Damu cast (it) and I took (it). l. 4 : dāmī ḫabrat : references as tu-ul-ta-am e-bi-ta-am, “a thick worm” (YOS 10, 9 : 26) show that ḫabārum, “to be thick” suits here better (contra Veldhuis 1993, 45 : dāmī ḫaprat. For the appellation “daughter of Gula” and the lullumtum garment, see discussion below. l. 5 : The spelling a-ak-ki-lu (with Farber’s collations in YOS 11, p. 61) : the long vowel /ā/, redundantly followed by a double consonant, is not free of problems. Semantically, however, ākilu dāmī makes good sense here. The verb at the end of the line is not belûm, “to extinguish” (contra Veldhuis 1993, 46), but pelûm-D, “to cause to be red”, a denominative from the adj. pelûm, “red-hued”, often said of blood and body parts, including eyes (CAD P, 319. In the same direction Foster 1996, 122). To the best of my knowledge, this is the first attestation of pelûm in the D stem. l. 6 : The line is poorly preserved. It is not clear why the scribe suddenly switches to the pl. when referring to the worm (iṭbuḫ-šunûti). At the end of line I suggest reading a-na ṣ[e?]-eḫ?!-r[i?-im?] (contra Veldhuis 1993, 46 : ana ⸢mu-ḫu-ḫi⸣ [ ]). l. 7 : ī[niq] : This restitution seems the most plausible.

YOS 11, 3 Obv. 1 tu-ul-tum {la ša°} 2 níg-gal-la-⸢ša DU7 ?⸣ 3 ⸢x x⸣ [x] ⸢x-x x x⸣-i 4 tu-ṣa-li-mi ⸢pí ?-id ?⸣-di gišTUKUL 5 i-ti-li li-ṣa-li-lu ⸢ni⸣-gál--ki 6 a-di i-mi ri-qá-⸢tim⸣-[m]a 7 mi-tum iš-tu er-ṣ[e]-tim 8 i-ba-lu-ṭa-am-ma 9 la te-li Rev. 10 ši-ip-tum ú-ul ia-a-tum 11 ši-pa-at dEn-líl 12 ši-ip-tum ú-ul ia-a-tum 13 ši-pa-at dUTU 14 dUTU ši-ip-tam id-/di 15 a-na-ku ri-mu 16 ka-ad°-ru ša ša-d[i]-/i 17 ad-⸢di⸣ š[i]-i[p]-t[am]-[m]a 18 a-na ra-⸢ma-ni⸣-[ia] Obv. 1 The “worm”…, 2 Her sickle butts ( ?), 3 .... 4 You (f.) have blackened the alleviation( ?) of the weapon. 5 Lie (f.) down ! May your (f.) sickle(s) fall asleep ! 6 Until they become empty, 7-8 and the dead comes to life from the netherworld 9 you must not rise ! Rev. 10 The incantation is not mine,

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

75

11 (it is) the incantation of Enlil. 12 The incantation is not mine, 13 (it is) the incantation of Šamaš. 14 Šamaš has cast the incantation, 15-16 I - a rearing wild bull of the mountains 17-18 have cast the spell on myself. l. 1 : The scribe has probably misplaced the la-ša sequence and erroneously copied the signs in l. 1, instead of l. 2. Note the archaic shape of the /la/ sign, used throughout the text. This may hint at an early Old Babylonian date of composition, but mark the lack of mimation in ll. 15 and 16 (rīmu ; kadru). l. 2 : Sickle, niggallum, is written in two different ways in the text : níg-gal-la-⸢ša (l.2) and ⸢ni⸣-gál--ki (l. 5). These spellings mix phonetic and ideogramic spellings (kuš.níg.gál Ḫḫ. XI 86 = MSL 9, 198, see CAD N/1, 213, lex. sec.) For the non-literal meaning of the “sickle”, see discussion below. The sign at the end of the line looks like a broken DU₇ = nakāpum, “to butt, to gore”, a verb which is also used metaphorically in relation to weapons (CAD N/1, 157 b), hence its association with sickle is not implausible. l. 4 : tuṣallimī pīdi kakkim : Until here the incantation was descriptive, talking of the worm in the 3rd ps. At this point the scribe, or the conjurer, turns directly to the worm. I read ⸢pí ?-id ?⸣-di as pīdī, with a double consonant standing for a long vowel, similarly to a-⸢ak ?⸣-[ki ?]-lu in YOS 11, 5 : 5, mentioned above. For the “weapon” and the “alleviation” see discussion below. l. 5 : liṣṣalilū : ṣalālum-N (with the ingressive meaning, “to fall to sleep”), or ṣalālum-Gt (with the habitative meaning, “to sleep constantly”) are not attested hitherto. Note further that niggallum takes the pl. f. form niggallātum, hence liṣṣalilā (pl. f.) or liṣṣalil (sg.), are expected. 15 l. 6 : ew/mûm usually takes –iš, or kīma or kî, but taking the acc. in the sense of “to turn into...”, is also known (CAD E, 414, 1). The commonly-considered later form īmi (not īwi) is very difficult. Note also the absence of subj. in īmi after adi. The adj. pl. f. rīqātim-ma refers back, presumably, to the “sickles” mentioned before. Perhaps to emend to i-mi-, “until they impose emptiness”?

II. THE DESCRIPTION OF LEECHES IN THE INCANTATIONS Ancient Babylonian scholars were keen and observant naturalists, and by crediting them with careful reading one cannot fail to note the parallels between the ancient incantations and modern zoological descriptions of the leech’s life and behavior. In what follows I will present the main points of comparison. (1) The typical color and pattern of the leech’s body YOS 11, 5 : 4 says : “(the worm is) clad in a lul(l)umtum-garment (lulumtam lubbušat). Mann, in his classical study of leeches (1962, 6-7), describes the body of the leech in these terms : “The colour pattern is very variable,... [it] usually consists of a greenish background with a pair of longitudinal red stripes and pattern of irregular black markings nearer the lateral margins... The body... is divided by transverse furrows into 102 annuli...” (figs. 1-2). In ancient Mesopotamian imagery, a pattern of longitudinal stripes with perpendicular annuli was connected to the typical ring-like weaving patterns of different festive garments prevalent in ancient Mesopotamia (fig. 3), one of which, I suggest, was the lul(l)umtumgarment, a festive royal garment. This garment is known from two Mari documents, from Yasmah-Addu’s reign. First the Ritual of Ištar (FM III, 54 ii 8) : lugal lu-lu-um-tam il-ta-ba-aš / wa-ar-ki ka-le-e / i-na giš-gu-za má-lah5 u š-ša-ab, “The king, once dressed up with the lul(l)umtum-garment, takes a seat on a chair of the boat, behind the singers...”. Another attestation of a lul(l)umtum-garment is found in a letter from Uṣur-awassu to Yasmah-Addu (ARM 26, 285 : 3-8) : aš-šum túglu-ul-lu-um-tim ša i-na ma-áš-tu-tim na-a[b-še-et] / i-na pa-nitim-ma a-na be-lí-ia / ki-a-am aq-bi um-ma a-na-ku-ma síg-duḫ-šú-a / i-na qa-tim ú-ul i-ba-aš15. Wasserman 2003, 131 and 150.

7 76 6

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

ši-i, “concerning the lul(l)umtum-garment which is being woven, previously thus did I say to my lord : ‘there is no duḫšu (colored wool) available...’“. J.-M. Durand, in ARM 30, p. 60 (kindly shared with me prior to publication), concludes that the lul(l)umtum-garment was a garment - not a type of textile – which was more common in Ur III times,16 but probably fell out of fashion in the OB period and reserved mainly for certain ceremonies. As ARM 26, 258 relates, it was woven from duḫšu – probably a deep blue- or turquoise–dyed wool.17 Now, in the description in the incantation the worm is “wearing a lul(l)umtum-garment”, which offers an important clue regarding the color, and perhaps also the texture of the lul(l)umtum-garment. The leech, once saturated with blood, may gain a typical deep purple, Bordeaux-like color, resembling, I suggest, the mysterious duḫšu dye. (2) The process of the leech feeding on blood Once saturated, the leech thickens considerably and becomes inactive for long periods of time while digesting. Regarding this, Mann (1962, 37) remarks : “it is a general character of blood-sucking leeches that they feed infrequently but take large quantities of blood at one time. Hirudo normally takes two to five times its own weight of blood and Haemadopsa, the land leech, may take ten times its own weight”. The incantation describes it clearly : dāmī ḫabrat,”(the leech is) thick with blood” (YOS 11, 5 : 4). (3) The Y-shaped incision that leeches leave on their hosts In the Physiology of Annelids, the wound caused by the leech is described in the following manner : “The... Hirudo medicinalis... pierce the tegument of their victims with their denticulated jaws, which move as minute saws... and produce a Y-shaped wound...”18 (fig. 4). The Y-shaped form of the wound caused by the leech’s bite is an imprint of the leech’s teeth (fig. 5). In the incantation these teeth are called metaphorically “the sickles” (YOS 11, 3 : 2, 5), a usage unknown until now and not recorded by the dictionaries.19 However, this type of comparison is not alien to Akkadian imagery, since the blades of various agricultural utensils (such as saw, plow, or hoe), are compared to teeth.20 The opposite comparison, that of teeth compared to a utensil, is merely a reverse image, and therefore not unexpected. Furthermore, worms’ teeth are explicitly mentioned in the lexical material : zu2-x-x // ši-in-ni tu-ul-ti, “teeth of a worm” (Kagal D Section 6 : 13’). A bilingual proverb mentioning sickles may strengthen the suggestion that “sickle” in the language of the incantation refers to the teeth and to the mark they leave. The proverb goes : lú-lul-la [gal4]-la ba-ab-ús lú-nu-gi-na giš-šu-kin-bi min-àm = sarru murteddû ūrī lā kīnu š itta niggallāšu, “A liar, chaser of (woman’s) pudenda, is not trustworthy : two are his “sickles”. 21 One can easily comprehend that “sickle” here is a euphemistic designation referring to the visual representation of a female pubic triangle, so here as well “sickle” points metaphorically to a Y-shaped form. Finally, a special instrument used by 16. See Çig/Kizilyai/Salonen, 1954 n°540 : 10 túglu-lu-um-tum šu-nir ki-lá-bi 4 2/3 ma-na ì-lá, “Ten l.garments (for) the divine emblem, weighing 4 and 2/3 minas each”. See also Waetzoldt 1972, 30 n° 241. 17. See Heimpel 2003, 284-285. Dalley (2000, 16) holds the opinion that duḫšu (and its Heb. cognate TAḤAŠ) designates “beading and attaching pendants, and inlaying in stone, metal, faience and glass, and is usually made on leather but sometimes also wool or linen, or as cloisonné in precious metals, timber, etc”. In view of ARM 26, 258, it is clear that duḫšu also had a simpler meaning of dyed wool. See also ARM 30, p. 154. 18. Michel/ Devillez in Mill 1978, 535-536.

19. Klein/Cohen 2001. 20. CAD Š/3, 52-53, 3). 21. BWL 255, 7-10. See Alster 1997, 271 : 9-10 - SP 23.7 (cf. also SP 1.158).

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

77

the asû in one of his medical procedures (maybe even in bloodletting) is called KIN.TUR ZABAR, “a small bronze sickle”.22 (4) The dark mark left on the host’s skin It was known for centuries that the bite of blood-sucking leeches is surprisingly painless. This is due in part to the small size of the bite, but mainly to the presence of a local anesthetic in the leech’s saliva, combined with the strong anticoagulant substance Hirudin, and various vasodilators, all of which increase the inflow of blood at the bite site.23 As a result, the characteristic hematic dark mark left by the leech is the sole sign of its attack (fig. 6). This phenomenon is referred to by the incantation with the words : tuṣallimī pīdī kakkim, “You have blackened the alleviation( ?) of the weapon” (YOS 11, 3 : 4). Despite the difficulties (see philological commentary above), I read ⸢pí ?-id ?⸣-di gišTUKUL as pīdī kakkim, from pīdu, which CAD P, 359 translates as “relief, reprieve, alleviation”, to describe the painless bite of the leech. An important support for this suggestion furnishes the opposite, more common compound lā pīdi, lit. “of no relenting”, which unequivocally describes merciless divine or royal kakkum, “weapon” (CAD P, 359 b). (5) The leech inside the patient’s eye YOS 11, 5 : 5 specifically mentions that the patient, the infant, is attacked in his eye, which consequently is reddened. Though this may sound unreasonable at first, medical literature is cognizant of cases of leeches biting a man’s eye.24 In most cases, the leech enters the eye while washing in impure water. One illustration of these unpleasant cases will suffice to prove that the incantation was describing accurately actual occurrences of leech attacks (fig. 7). (6) The peculiar stance of the leech Sawyer (1986, 386-387) describes the particular posture of leeches in the following manner : “In response to a range of stimuli a leech may extend itself to full length and remain motionless, sometimes for considerable periods of time... The function of this so-called alert posture can only be presumed but all indications are that it is a state of higher excitation in primed readiness for further sensory information...” (fig. 8). The incantation refers to this posture elliptically with the words itīlī liṣṣalilū nigallaki, “lie down ! May your sickle(s) fall asleep !” (YOS 11, 3 : 5), and directly : lā tellî, “you must not rise !” (YOS 11, 3 : 9). What precedes this emphatic order is remarkable : itīli liṣṣalilū nigallaki adi īmi rīqātimma mītum ištu erṣetim iballuṭamma lā tellî, “Lie down ! May your sickle fall asleep ! Until they become empty, and the dead comes to life from the netherworld you must not rise !” (YOS 11, 3 : 5-9). The intent of the magician’s conjuration is to prevent the leech from “rising” again, that is from preparing to attack, for as long as possible. The mention of the dead rising from the earth is not unknown in Babylonian literature, and can be compared to the threat to break the gates of the Netherworld and raise the dead in Ištar’s Descent and in Nergal and Ereškigal. In Udug-hul roaming evil spirits are attested abundantly (but, admittedly, it is not clear whether they are the spirits of dead persons, or

22. Stol 1989, 164, for which see more below. 23. In his comprehensive study, Sawyer (1986, 490) describes this in the following way : “An anaesthetic prepares the area for a bite, while other secretions maximize penetration of the secretions around the bite...”.

24. See, e.g. Lewis/Coombes 2006.

7 78 8

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

endemic chthonic creatures).25 In Old Babylonian magical literature, however, such a portrait is uncommon. An interesting parallel, however, is found in a post-Old Babylonian composition, in the famous Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, precisely where the goddess – in different personifications, as Ninigizibara, and as Ninlil – describes herself as a physician : “I am a physician, I can heal, I carry around all herbs, I remove disease, I gird myself with a leather bag of curing incantations, I carry prescriptions of well-being, I give life to all humans, my pure bandage soothes the wound, my soft covering gives relief to pain, to the raising of my eyes the dead comes back to life”,26 and also : “I bring up the dead from the netherworld, I gird myself with a leather bag, a razor, a knife, a..., I look over the fatigued, I closely watch the sick, I open the wound – Lady of Health I am, I am a physician...”.27 The passages from the Gula hymn offer an important clue to the understanding of the phrase adi ... mītum ištu erṣetim iballuṭamma in YOS 11, 3. They prove that the context of allusion to the dead person who is supposed to come back to life is not merely mythological, but in fact medical : the dead is no other than the ailing patient, who in this particular case was bitten by a leech. The conjurer confronts the leech and demands that it stop preying on more blood, i.e. “rising” to its typical alert posture, thus allowing the patient to recover. The patient’s recovery, his resurrection, is described in the first incantation, through the image of the child sucking from his mother’s breasts (YOS 11, 5 :7). The child’s reaction supplies a sound indication for his recovery, for only a living child sucks milk from his mother’s breast.28 (7) The way saturated leeches digest their meal and evacuate the remains This stage is described by Mann (1962, 38) as follows : “When a meal of blood has been sucked into the crop it first thickens, water being abstracted and passed out via the nephridia... [It has been] reported that when land leeches are feeding they become surrounded by a pool of clear fluid. This is presumably a nephridial excretion”. This digestive phase is not described in the OB incantations, not necessarily because it was unknown to the Babylonians, but more likely because it is irrelevant to the healing process. Yet, surprisingly, the Latin text presented at the outset seems to refer to it. To honor ancient scribes, Latin and Babylonian alike, let us go back to the 13th century bestiarium again. It reads : “...when [the leech] is full of too much blood it vomits what it drinks in purpose to drink it again”. Since leeches were traditionally considered as having two heads,29 one at each end of their body, it can be easily understood how this nephridial excretion might be interpreted as “vomiting”. Another 25. See Geller 1985, 34 : 247-249. 26. Lambert 1967, 120 : 79-86 : asâkuma bulluṭ ale’’i / našâku šammī kullassunu unessi murṣu / ezḫēku

tukannu ša šipāt balāṭu / našâku mašṭaru ša šalāmu / anamdin bulṭu ana ba’ūlātu / ellu riksu simma unāḫ / rabbu ṣindi murṣa upaššaḫ / ina nīš īnēja mītu iballuṭ.

27. Lambert 1967, 128 : 179-183 (with CAD S, 278a) : mītu ultu erṣetim utarra / ezḫēku tukannu naglabu quppû ... / aḫaṭṭi anhu abarri marṣu apatti simmu / bēltu ša balāṭu anākuma / asâku .... 28. Note the opposite comparison : kīma nīd libbi lā iṣbatu (var. īniqu) tulê ummišu atta ē tassaḫra ana ṣibtika, “just as a stillbirth does not grasp (var. sucks) his mother’s breast, so will you (the malevolent agent) not turn back to him who you have grasped” (BAM 29 : 12’-14’ with vars., see Mayer 1992, 376-377). More literary devices are found in these two incantations. In YOS 11, 3 we find the jeu de mots which confronts itīlī “fall asleep !” and lā tellî “may you (the worm) not rise”. The alliteration between itūlum, “to lie down, to sleep” and elûm, “to go up, arise” creates a pun which efficiently serves the purpose of the incantation. At the end of YOS 11, 5 we find the ailing child getting better : “He opened his mouth, took the (mother’s) breast, raised his eyes, (began to) suck”. This scene presents the revenge of the child : first the worm was sucking ; now the child is sucking. Here, too, as observed by Veldhuis (1993) a neat pun is used to express this reversal of actions : at the beginning the tūltum, the worm, was sucking, now the child is sucking the tūlum, the breast. Thus, here also a pun : tūltum vs. tūlum. 29. A belief reflected in, and further spreading from Prov 30 :15 : “The ʿălûqâ has two daughters (who say) ‘Give, give !’“.

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

79

possibility to explain the leech’s “vomiting” can also be offered. Various first-aid instructions mention the traditional method to remove an attached leech by applying a flame, salt, vinegar, or alcohol.30 This causes the leech to disgorge its stomach contents into the wound and quickly detach. This common technique, which is medically inadvisable as the vomit may carry disease and increases the risk of infection, was probably known in Medieval Europe, and is hinted at by the 13th century bestiarium. III. THE LEECH – DAUGHTER OF GULA Having demonstrated that the Old Babylonian scribes were well aware of leeches, knowing how to describe their form and behavior in a surprisingly accurate - even if at times metaphorical - manner, the question arises whether Babylonian scholars regarded leeches only as a molesting creatures, or also knew about their potential beneficial qualities, as a most efficient bloodletting device. In a recent study, Geller (2004) has argued that phlebotomy, i.e. bloodletting, was alien to Babylonian medicine, and was virtually unknown there. According to Geller, the references to bloodletting in the Babylonian Talmud only mirror the contacts of Jewish scholars in Babylon with their colleagues in Palestine, where Greek medical tradition prevailed and bloodletting was often practiced. Without challenging Geller’s findings regarding the Babylonian Talmud, and not denying that the positive evidence regarding bloodletting in cuneiform sources is scanty and indirect, I would suggest, nevertheless, a somewhat less definite conclusion. Stol, in his study on Old Babylonian ophthalmology (1989, 164), drew the attention to Nabnītu 41 (MSL 16, 181) gi-dù-a = maḫāṣum ša dāmi, lit. “hitting of blood”, and took it to designate bloodletting. In the diagnostic texts cited by Stol, maḫāṣum in the sense of incising or bloodletting, refers to the patient’s temporal vein. The knife used for this “hitting” is called KIN.TUR ZABAR, lit. “a small bronze sickle”.31 At this point of the discussion the colocation of a sickle and blood cannot be overlooked : the “worm” in YOS 11, 3 : 2, 5 is also said to have “sickles”, which we have shown to be connected with blood. The evidence at hand, therefore, even if meager, hints at the possibility that Babylonian medicine was not unaware of the practice of bloodletting.32 Furthermore, I wish to submit that at least one of the discussed incantations could also suggest that leeches were considered as a component of the ancient Babylonian physician’s arsenal. My argument is based on YOS 11, 5 : 4, a line in which the worm is referred to as “the daughter of Gula”. This appellation calls for explanation : why is the malevolent agent, the very one that the physician or the magician confronts and strives to destroy, associated in such an intimate way with the goddess of medicine and healing ? A seemingly similar case is that of Lamaštu, who is called mārat Anim, “the daughter of Anu”, so much so that it is said that this appellation is “her first name”.33 Böck (2007, 108) states : “Die Identifizierung des Dämons als Kind oder Erzeugnis der Götter ist Gemeinplatz in der Beschwörungsliteratur”, referring mainly to Lamaštu. But Lamaštu is a case apart. One of the most feared of demonic creatures in the Mesopotamian world, Lamaštu was considered semi-divine, comparable to Namtar, who is 30. The Sunday Times (15/10/2006) “The Knowledge : Removing a leech” (http ://driving.timesonline .co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article600016.ece.) Also : http ://www.worstcasescenarios.com/scenario.htm ?scenarioid=22, and Victorian Poisons Information : http ://www.rch.org.au/poisons/stings.cfm ?doc_id=3693. 31. Similarly G. Buisson, RA 100 (2006), 187b. 32. Gula’s temple in Isin, É-sa-bad, is rendered by Stol (1989, 164) as “House of the Opening of Veins”, and

seen as another argument in favor of the existence of the procedure of bloodletting. This, however, is less than certain : George (1992, 331) (1993, 137), leaning on first millennium Assyrian interpretations of the Sum. name (bīt petât uzni and bītu nāṣir qubūri), takes the É-sa-bad to mean “House of the Open Ear”.

33. mārat Anim šumša ištēn (4R Add. 10 to pl 56 i1 and dupls.), see CAD Š /3, 285a, 1a)1’.

8 80 0

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

called “the favorite son of Enlil”,34 to the underworld demons who are referred to as “Anu’s seed”,35 to Kittum, the goddess of justice, who was called “the daughter of Šamaš”,36 or even to Ištar or Nanāya, who are known to as “the daughter of Sîn”.37 Thus, the designation of the fearsome she-demon is not analogous to our case : Lamaštu is a half-goddess and as such can be clearly called “the daughter of Anu”. YOS 11, 5 : 4, by contrast, affiliates a non-divine, harmful creature to a high-ranking goddess, whose responsibility is precisely to work against such damaging parasites.38 One has to look for other parallels to this title of the leech. More relevant for us here is the title “daughter of Ištar” attached to a certain plant named timbut eqli, “the ‘harp’ of the field”. This plant is widely attested in medico-magical texts and in pharmaceutical prescriptions.39 Another plant, e/irrû, commonly identified as colocynth, carries the appellation “the daughter of the great gods”.40 Again, the available written sources show that this plant was used for magic and medicinal purposes. Similarly, sulphur, kibrītu, is called “daughter of great heaven” in Maqlû.41 Finally, mārat DN (Anu or Ea) is also the title of the two, or seven, benign goddesses that appear in various medical and magical texts, with the role of comforting and soothing the wounded or diseased person.42 All this leads to the conclusion that, in magical or medicinal contexts, when applied to natural phenomena, the designation mārat DN refers to helpful and beneficial elements – in short to materia medica. Similarly, when applied to minor deities – not to entities which belong to the foreign sphere of demons ! – this designation describes a minor deity with healing powers.43 It follows that the leech, which in YOS 11, 5 : 4 is called “the daughter of Gula”, was also considered as carrying some beneficial, or even healing function, and was not only seen as a hostile, harmful creature. What role could the parasitic leech bear in the healing process ? How exactly could the physician use leeches in his work ? It is tempting to answer that leeches were used as a means of letting blood, but, again, no positive textual evidence can be brought to support this proposal. Until new textual evidence shows up, this question must remain open. IV. GULA’S DOG AND HER KNIVES The attributes of the asû are described in two well-known passages from the Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi, cited above : “I am a physician,... I carry around all herbs..., I gird myself with a leather bag of curing incantations, I carry prescriptions of well-being...”,44 and “I gird myself with a leather bag, a razor, a knife, a...”.45 As for Gula, the Mesopotamian healing 34. Geller (1985), 40 : 360. See Wiggermann 2000. 35. Geller (1985), 109 : 1ff.) 36. RA 38, 86 : rev. 22, see CAD M/1, 304, 1d) 2’. 37. See CAD M/1, 303, 1d) 1’. 38. Note that Anu is certainly not the god who is responsible for fighting Lamaštu’s malicious actions,

whereas Gula is the goddess who is supposed to fight the leech.

39. See CAD T, 418, 3b) 1’-2’. 40 . kīma irrî (úKÚŠ.HAB) m[ārat] ilī rabûti ipšu bārtu amāt lemutti lā iṭeḫḫû lā iqarrubu, “just as

witchcraft, rebellion, and evil word do not approach, do not draw near...” (Maqlû V : 17, see Mayer, Or. 61 (1992), 382.

41. CAD I/J, 182-183 s.v. irrû, CAD K, 334 s.v. kibrītu. 42. See CAD M/1, 304, 1d) 4’-a’-b’, and, e.g. Biggs, ŠÀ.ZI.GA (TCS 3) 18 :7. 43. An in-between case is that of dNisaba, a goddess but also personification of wheat and flour, who is also

called “the daughter of Anu” : ⸢dNisaba⸣ elletu mārat dAnim [...] ša ina karpat nanḫuzu [i]-[ša-ta], “the pure flour, daughter of Anu, which catches fire in the jar... (Maqlû II, 221, see CAD A/1, 183, 11b).

44. Lambert, Or. 36 (1967), 120 : 79-82. 45. Lambert, Or. 36 (1967), 128 : 180.

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

81

goddess was typically depicted as accompanied by her totemic animal, the dog.46 Yet, as demonstrated by Collon (1994), and as suggested by a passage from an Old Babylonian incantation against the maškādum-disease, Gula’s paraphernalia included also a scalpel, or some other surgical instrument. The maškādum-incantation reads : “get out maškādum, before the flint-knives of Gula will reach you !”47 Thus, the physicians’ patron-goddess shared the attribute of the knife with the practitioners of medicine. Two visual representations of a practicing healer can be adduced here. Both well-known representations are found on NeoAssyrian cylinder seals : the first seal (non-provenanced) belongs the Marcopoli collection,48 the second is from the excavations of Tell-Halaf49 (figs. 9-10). A reed hut (probably a šutukku) is found at the center of the two seal impressions. Inside of the hut the healer can be seen leaning over the sick person who is lying down, assisted by a kneeling woman. Above the hut astral symbols of the gods are hovering. Noticeable is the attentive dog, next to which, in the two seals, the mysterious rhomb sign can be seen.50 From closer examination one can see that the healer, approaching the patient, is holding an instrument in his hand. This instrument is, I submit, a knife ; one of the special types of knives, lancets, or scalpels that the texts mention as characterizing the asû : the naglabum, or the quppûm (mentioned in literary texts like the Bulluṭsa-rabi hymn), the karzillum (mentioned in CH §215), or the KIN.TUR ZABAR (found in the diagnostic text STT 1, 89 : 155f. and treated by Stol 1989, 164).51 Different surgical and medicinal tools have been unearthed in Mesopotamian excavations, showing great resemblance to the tool held by the healer in the cylinder seals discussed here (fig. 11).52 Thus, if my reasoning is correct and the knives join the dog(s) as attributes of the healing goddess Gula, the person treating the patient in these two seals is the physician, the asû - not the āšipu. But Gula’s association with dogs is not so straightforward. In the same tablet of medical incantations, one of which was treated above, yet another incantation is found. In this incantation worms are also mentioned together with Gula and her dogs. This incantation will be the last text to be treated in this paper. V. THE WORMS – GULA’S DOGS ? YOS 11, 5 : 9-14 9 i-nu-ma dGu-la il-li-ku mu-tu-tam kal-bu il-li-ku wa-ar-ki-i-ša 10 tu-le-a-tum i-dam ia-ši-im su-up-pu ù ṣú-ḫu-um ša il-li-ku wa-ar-ki-ša i-[n]u-ma dEN.ZU iš-tu NIBRUki ú-ṣi-a-am 11 ú-wa-aš-še-e[r zu ?/ku ?-u]b-ba-am ù zuqiqīpam (GÍR.TAB) a-na qá-aq-qá-di-im m[u !-n]am ! a-na ap-pí ṣe-eḫ-ri-im bé-li it-ta-di

46 . For the association of a healing female divinity (the amalgamation of Gula, Ninisina, Ninkarak, Nintinugga, and Baba) with the dog, see Fuhr 1977, Collon 1994, and Ornan 2004. Interestingly, not only Asclepius but also St. Roch (Rock, Rocco), the patron-saint of surgeons and pharmacists, who is commonly invoked as a healer of the plague, is typically depicted in the Roman Catholic iconography as accompanied by a dog (see The Book of Saints, 1989, 484 ; Giorgi/Zuffi 2003, 319). 47. YOS 11, 14 : rev. 5 : ṣī maškadum lāma ikšdūka ṣurrū naglābū ša dGula. 48. Teissier 1984, no. 231, cf. 39, 170. 49. Meissner 1934, 18. 50. Black/Green 1992, 153 : “... the rhomb seems to have had a magically protective function”. See Göhde 2000, who shows the connection of the rhomb to Gula.

51. These were different instruments. Note the difference between the straight and pointed knife, and the scimitar-shaped scalpel, which is held by Gula (as depicted in the cylinder seals discussed by Collon 1994). 52. Heeßel 2008, 414 (Abb. 302).

8 82 2

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

12 ṣe-eḫ-rum la i-de-a-am mu-ru-us-su la i-de-a-am ta-ni-ḫi-šu ⸢ta-az⸣-zi-qí-šu 13 ak-nu-uk ap-pa-am ù ḫa-sí-sà-am ak-nu-uk ši-pi-a-tim ša mu-ḫi-i-šu ša Al-la-tum ú !(Text :i)-ra-am-mu-šu 14 i-di-a-am a-na bi-ri-tu tu-li-ša ši-ip-tum ú-ul ia-a-tum š i-pa-at dGu-la 9 When Gula was walking in bravery, (her) dogs were walking behind her. 10 - “Worms ! to (my) side ! to me !” Prayer(s) and Laughter that were walking behind her. 10-11 When Sîn came out of Nippur he released the [fly( ?) /ee]l( ?) and the scorpion to the head. My lord threw the larva to the child’s nose. 12 May the child not experience (any more of) his illness, may he not experience (any more of) his distress, (of) his anxiety ! 13 I have sealed (his) nose and (his) ear. I have sealed the sutures of his skull that Allatum has loosened. 14. She threw (him ? it ?) in between her breast. This incantation is not mine : (it is) the incantation of Gula. l. 9 : Mimation is usual in this text, hence kal-bu is likely to be pl., “dogs”. l. 10 : tu-le-a-tum i-dam ia-ši-im : The line begins with three staccato-like orders of Gula to her accompanying 53 creatures : tuliātum (CAD T, 466 1a) is a vocative - “worms !”, while idam stands in the adv. acc. designating movement : “to the side !” (similarly to imittam “to the right”, šumēlam “to the left”, aḫītam “to the side”, see GAG §113b). Thus read, the text reveals that the worms are the dogs of Gula. This metaphoric linkage is confirmed by the repeated phrase “(they) were walking behind her”, which first refers to the dogs (l. 9), and then to the worms (l. 10). For the significance of calling the worms “Gula’s dogs” see discussion below. In the middle of the line the copy clearly shows /su/, not /zu/. This renders the reading zubbu, “fly” (van Dijk, YOS 11, p. 19) hard to accept. Instead I prefer to read su-up-pu ù ṣú-ḫu-um “Prayer(s) and Laughter”. These abstract nouns may seem strange in this context, but this difficulty is solved if one follows the suggestion that these are the 54 names of Gula’s dogs, so-called because of their peculiar howling sounds (note that damāmum, “to mourn”, is used to describe the sound of various animals, including dogs, cf. AHw 155 s.v.). The elaborate names of the dogs that were intended to magically fight Lamaštu (“Fast-is-his-attack”, “Watch-all-night-to-fend-off-the-Daughter-ofAnu”, “Very-swift-is-his-attack”, “Don’t-be-negligent-on-your-watch”, “Bark-without-hesitation”, “Overthrow-thewicked-one !”, and “Sîn-is-the-herdsman-of-the-dogs”, see Farber 2007, 638) prove that it was not exceptional for divine dogs to have their specific names. l. 11 : Does Sîn’s setting off from Nippur in the incantation echo the moon-god’s famous return to Ur after visiting his father, Enlil, a journey recorded in Nanna-Suen Journey to Nibru (ETCSL t.1.5.1) ? The mention of Sîn as bēlī, “my lord”, together with traits of Southern orthography scattered through the text (/su/ l. 12 ; /pi/ l. 13 – but note /pí/ in l. 11), may indicate a Southern origin to the text, perhaps Ur. Van Dijk (YOS 11, p. 19) restored [...zu?-u]b-ba-am, “fly”. This suggestion continues the fly found in l. 10. But that fly, as pointed out above, is questionable. As an alternative one could perhaps read [...ku?-u]b-ba-am, from kuppûm (nothing hampers the reading kubbûm), “an eel-like fish”, “a bird” (CAD K, 551f. s.v.). An eel-like fish could go

53. The pl. form tu-li-a-tum may look as if it presupposes the sg. *tulītum, similarly to pl. rabiātum and sg. rabītum.Yet “worm” in sg. is always tūltum, never *tulītum. In fact, tūliātum does not stand for *tūliyātum, but reveals the original pursat nominal form of the root √tlʾ : tulʾatum sg. (GAG §55dI), with the dropping of the /ʾ/ and the consequent lengthening of the preceding vowel, as in ḫiṭ’um > ḫīṭum (GAG§15b). Thus the accurate Old Babylonian spelling is tu-le-a-tum (which in later sources, cf. CAD T, 466b, is contracted to tu-la-a-ti). This spelling represents tul’ātum < tulʾātum - the plus-vowel is a result of the strong liquidity of /l/ (as pērtum/pēretum, “hair”, also a III-week root : √prʾ). Furthermore, it is worth noticing that besides the pl. tūliātum (tulʾātum) and the sg. tūltum (tulʾatum), also tūlum (tulʾum) is attested (Diri IV 139, see CAD T, 469 s.v. [ú]-⸢uḫ⸣ = IM.ŠÚ = tu-ú-lu, “mng. unkn.”. Note that compounds of uḫ stand for tūltum). Thus we have the full semantic range : tulʾum sg. m. is the nomen generis, “worm” (the species in general, uncountable) ; tūltum sg. f. is the nomen unitatis, “worm” (one, countable) ; and tūliātum pl. f. “worms” (some or many, countable). This tripartite division is found also in Heb. : tolaʾ sg. m., tolāʾim pl. m., and tolaʾat sg. f. (I am thankful to Martin Worthington for fruitful discussions of this point). 54. I owe this idea to my student Avigail Wagschal.

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

83

well with Sîn : this god is known to enjoy river-side fishing (cf. Wasserman 1995), and is depicted as bringing about plenty of fish (Nanna-Suen Journey to Nibru = ETCSL t.1.5.1). ana qaqqadim : Syntactically this expression is unconnected, and is probably an inelegant prolepsis, referring to the child’s head. A better possibility would be to render it prepositionally, “forward”, designating the movement of the moon-god’s creatures towards the child, but I could not find a parallel to this use of qaqqadum. l. 12 : i-di-a-am : The same construction of edûm + ventive, is found, e.g. in Gilg. Y. 275 (George 2003, 206) : [i-na q]ištim(TIR) i-de-a-am šu-pa-as-sú, “In the forest I knew his lair”.) For tazzīqum see George 1994. l. 13 : A similar list of body parts is found in YOS 11, 6, where the sequence skull-forehead-ear-nostril is listed. Van Dijk interpreted YOS 11, 6 too as referring to a fly, or a spider (YOS 11, p. 21, so also Foster 1993, 128). ši-pi-a-tim ša mu-ḫi-i-šu : Contra CAD Š/3, 147b s.v. *šiwītu, “(mng. unkn.)”, and CDA 378b s.v. šiwiātu, “mng. unkn. OB in incantation”, this word derives from šip/bītum, “suture, seam”, said of garments but also of the skull (cf. CAD Š/2, 381 s.v. šibītum. and AHw 1214a s.v. šēpītu(m), “Fußteil, -ende”. Neither dictionary mentions this incantation). ú !(Text :i)-ra-am-mu-šu : CAD Š/3, 147b s.v. *šiwītu renders i-ra-am-mu-šu as deriving from râmum and translates accordingly “he whom Allatum loves”. This makes little sense. One ought rather to recur to ramûm, “to become soft, to slacken, to loosen” (intrans.) and emend the form to the trans. D stem, “to loosen” said parts of the body (e.g. qaqqadī ú-ra-mu-u lētī imḫaṣu... birkēja ú-ra-mu-u, “They have loosened my head, hit my cheek... loosened my knees”, KAR 32 : 42, 44, cited in CAD R, 129, 2). Allatum : The deity which is to blame for loosening the sutures of the child’s skull is Ereškigal, the queen of the Netherworld, see An=Anum V : 213 and Emesal Vocabulary II : 102. l. 14 : i-di-a-am a-na bi-ri-tu tu-li-ša : The incantation terminates abruptly. Comparing this phrase to the similar scene in YOS 11, 5 : 7, I tend to see a happy ending here : the mother is calming her recovered baby by putting him in between (loc. adv.) her breasts, probably providing him milk. Throwing something in between woman’s breasts is attested in BM 79022 : 15-17, another magical text : šiptam tamannû[ma] ana birīt tūliša tanaddīma, “(once) you 55 have recited the incantation, you will throw/put it in between her breasts”.

The incantation YOS 11, 5 : 9-14 poses various problems pertaining to grammar and context. To start with, the minor mythological scene depicted in the incantation is hard to construe : how are Gula, Sîn, and Ereškigal (Allatum) connected ? Are they joining forces, or in fact competing with each other ? In other words, is one of these gods causing the infant’s ailment while the other(s) are trying to cure him ? What connects the various animals – the dogs, the eel (or the fly), the scorpion and the larva ? What is the relation of the child’s affected part (head ? nose ?) to his ear and the skull ? Is there only one direct malefactor involved, the larva, or are there more direct causes to the child’s disease ? (For it is to be noticed that, unlike tūltum, the general term used for different sorts of annelids, mūnum, larva, is recorded primarily as a field parasite, not as a vermin which attacks human beings). These questions remain unanswered, but one aspect of this unusual text is clear : the incantation refers to the worms, tūliātum that accompany Gula, as “dogs”. Thus, here – and as far as I know only here – Gula’s dogs are not canids, but annelids. Surprising as this may sound, a parallel metaphorical use is found in other magical texts. As demonstrated by George (1999), field pests like locust, caterpillars, small birds, etc. are referred to in incantations and ritual texts as “the dogs of Ninkilim”. The tertium comparationis that creates the semantic bridge between locusts, caterpillars, worms and dogs is the teeth, common to all the creatures which cause damage and trouble by biting or devouring. The case of YOS 11, 5 : 9-14 is therefore not unique. Here, however, the metaphor is more complex : Gula is known to have real dogs, 56 and the introduction of the invertebrate-dogs creates an elusive double entendre between the metaphorical use of “dogs” and their literal meaning. In this paper I have presented two main arguments. The first is that the “worm” mentioned in a small group of Old Babylonian incantations actually refers to a leech, and that 55. An edition and study of this Old Babylonian bilingual tablet of incantations will be published in the near future by the present author. 56. Also Ištar and Nanaya are known to have dogs, real ones, of their own, see Farber 2007, 640.

8 84 4

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

Babylonian physicians observed this fascinating creature up close and knew much of its behavior. The second, more conjectural argument concerns the special relation between Gula and the worm(s). I have proposed that the direct designation “daughter of Gula” regarding the worm (YOS 11, 5 : 4) suggests that Babylonian physicians took leeches to be not only harmful, but also potentially beneficial creatures. By this I do not claim that leeches were necessarily used for bloodletting. As stated above more than once, the evidence in cuneiform sources for this medical practice in ancient Mesopotamia is sparse and indirect - but the present study calls for greater attention in this direction. The designation “the dogs of Gula” regarding worms (pl.) does not support or deny the possibility that worms, or leeches, were used medicinally. But this metaphor does seem to strengthen the notion that leeches were considered closely related to the healing goddess, and that they were seen as part of Gula’s attributes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albinali, H. (2004) : ‘Traditional Medicine among Gulf Arabs. Part II - Blood Letting’, Heart Views 5/2, 74-85. Alster, B. (1997) : Proverbs of Ancient Sumer : The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections, Bethseda. The Book of Saints (1989) : St. Augustine’s Abbey Ramsgate, The Book of Saints : A Dictionary of Servants of God Canonized by the Catholic Church, 6th ed., London. Black, J./Green, A. (1992) : Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, An Illustrated Dictionary, London. Böck, B. (2007) : Das Handbuch Muššu’u “Einreibung”. Eine Serie sumerischer und akkadischer Beschwörungen aus dem 1. Jt. v.Chr. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo - BPOA 3 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid. Cig, M./ Kizilyay, H./ Salonen, A. (1954), Die Puzriš-Dagan Texte der Istanbuler Archäologischen Museen Teil 1, N. 1-725, Helsinki. Collon, D. (1987) : First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London. Collon, D. (1994) : ‘Neo-Assyrian Gula in the British Museum’, Beschreiben und Deuten in der Archäologie des Alten Orients (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 4), Münster, 43-48. Cunningham, G. (1997) :’Deliver me from Evil’ Mesopotamian Incantations 2500-1500 BC (Studia Pohl Series Maior 17), Roma. Dalley, S. (2000) : ‘Hebrew TAḤAŠ, Akkadian DUHŠU, Faience and Beadwork’, JSS 45, 1-19. Farber, W. (2007) : ‘Lamaštu and the dogs’, Journal for Semitics 16 (RAI 50 Proceedings), 635-645. Foster, B. (1993) : Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, Bethesda. Fuhr, I. (1977) : ‘Der Hund als Begleittier der Göttin Gula und anderer Heilgottheiten', in Hrouda, B., Isin Ishan Bahriyat I. Der Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1973-1974, Münich, 135-145. Geller, M. (1985) : Forerunners to Udug-Hul. Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations (FAOS 12), Stuttgart. (2004) : ‘Bloodletting in Babylonia’, in Horstmanshoff, H.F.J./Stol, M . (eds.), Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine (Studies in Ancient Medicine 27), Leiden, 305-324. George, A. R. (1992) : Babylonian Topographical Texts, Leuven. (1993) : House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Winona Lake. (1994) : ‘tazzīqum, « vexation »’, NABU 1994/27. (1999) : ‘The Dogs of Ninkilim : Magic against Field Pests in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in Klengel H./ Renger J. (eds.), Landwirtschaft im Vorderen Orient : ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Berlin 4-8.7.1994 (Berlin), 291-299. (2003) : The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Oxford. Giorgi, R./ Zuffi, S. (2003) : Saints in Art, Los Angeles. Gödhe, H. E. (2000): ‘The Rhomb, A God's Symbol', in Graziani, S. (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, vol I, 395-415. Heeßel, N. P. (2008) : ‘Babylonische Wissenschaft - Medizin und Magie', in Marzahn J. / Schauerte G. (eds.), Babylon. Wahrheit. Eine Ausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums, Berlin, 413-428. Heimpel, W. (2003), Letters to the King of Mari. A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, Winona Lake. Klein, J./ Cohen, Ch. (2001) : ‘ḤRMŠ and MGL in the Bible and Their Parallels - Ugaritic ḥrmtt and Akkaddian niggallu’, in Talshir, Z./ Jona, Sh./ Sivan, D. (eds.), Homage to Shmuel : Studies in the World of the Bible, Jerusalem, 245-268.

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

85

Kutschera, U./Pfeiffer, I./Ebermann, E. (2007) : ‘The European Land Leech : Biology and DNA-Based Taxonomy of a Rare Species That Is Threatened By Climate Warming’, Naturwissenschaften 94/12, 967–974. Lambert, W.G. (1967), ‘The Gula Hymn of Bulluṭsa-rabi’, Or. 36, 105-132. Landsberger, B. (1934) : Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie Ḫar-ra = Ḫubullu, Leipzig. Lewis, G./Coombes, A. (2006) : ‘Adult Ocular Leech Infestation’, Eye 20, 391–392 (http ://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v20/n3/full/6701862a.html₁bib1). Mann, K. H. (1962) : Leeches (Hirudinea) Their Structure, Physiology, Ecology and Embryology (International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology. Division Zoology 11) Oxford/New York. Mayer, W. R. (1992) : ‘Das ‘gnomische Präteritum’ im literarischen Akkadisch’, Or. 61, 373-399. Meissner, B. (1934) : ‘Siegelzylinder mit Krankheitsbeschwörungen’, MAOG 8/2, 14-26. Mill, P. J. (1978) : Physiology of Annelids, London/ New York. Ornan, T. (2004): ‘The Goddess Gula and Her Dog', Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 3, 13-30. Pormann, P. E./Savage-Smith, E. (2007) : Medieval Islamic Medicine, Washington, D.C. Sawyer, R. T. (1986) : Leech Biology and Behaviour (Oxford Science Publications), Oxford/New York. Stol, M. (1989) : ‘Old Babylonian Ophthalmology', in Lebeau, M. / Talon, Ph. (eds.), Reflets des deux fleuves (Akkadica Supp. VI), Leuven. Teissier, B. (1984) : Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopolic Collection, Berkeley. van der Toorn, K./Becking, B./van der Horst, P.W. (1999) : Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden/Boston. Trontelj, P./Utevsky, S. (2004) : ‘Celebrity with a Neglected Taxonomy : Molecular Systematics of the Medicinal Leech (genus Hirudo)’, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 23, 616-624. Utevsky, S./Trontelj, P. (2005) : ‘A New Species of the Medicinal Leech (Oligochaeta, Hirudinida, Hirudo) from Transcaucasia and an Identification Key for the genus Hirudo’, Parasitol Res. 28, 1-6. Veldhuis, N.C. (1993) : ‘The Fly, the Worm, and the Chain’, OrLP 24, 41-64. Waetzoldt, H. (1972) : Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie, Roma. Wasserman, N. (1995) : ‘Sîn Goes to Fishing’, NABU 1995/71 Wasserman, N. (2003) : Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts (Cuneiform Monographs 27), Leiden/Boston. Whitaker, I. S., et al. (2003) : ‘Historical Article : Hirudo Medicinalis : Ancient Origins of, And Trends in the Use of Medicinal Leeches throughout History’, British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 42, 133-137. Wiggermann, F. A. M. (2000), ‘Lamaštu, daughter of Anu : a profile’, in M. Stol (ed.), Birth in Babylonia and the Bible : its Mediterranean setting, Groningen, 217-252.

ABSTRACT This article examines a small group of Old Babylonian incantations which deal with “worms”, showing that these “worms” are in fact leeches - probably the oldest description of leeches known hitherto. The relation of leeches to the goddess of healing, Gula, is evident, but the question of the exact use of these enigmatic creatures in ancient Mesopotamian medicine remains open.

RÉSUMÉ Cet article examine un petit groupe d'incantations paléo-babyloniennes traitant des “vers” qui montre qu'il s'agit en fait de sangsues - probablement leur plus ancienne description connue jusque-là. Les rapports entre les sangsues et la déesse de la guérison, Gula, sont clairs, mais la question de l'utilisation exacte de ces créatures énigmatiques dans la médecine mésopotamienne reste ouverte.

Assyriology - Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, MI. Scopus 91905 [email protected]

8 86 6

NATHAN WASSERMAN

[RA 102

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 – Hirudo medicinalis (from Mann 1962, between 146-147 colour plate, no. 1)

Fig. 2 – Hirudo medicinalis drawing of body pattern and annuli (from Mann 1962, 6 fig. 1a)

Fig. 3 – Male Ceremonial Dresses (from Collon 1987, 149, ill. 646)

Fig. 4 – Y-Shaped incision made on the host by a leech.

2008

ON LEECHES, DOGS, AND GODS

Fig. 5 – Y-Shaped teeth of a leech. (Photo: courtesy Carsten Morkel)

Fig. 6 – A bite of the leech with typical incision and inflammation (Photo: courtesy Elke Vossen).

Fig. 7 – Reddened eye caused by a leech attack (from Lewis/Coombes 2006)

Fig. 8 – Leech in alert posture (Photo courtesy Matthias Sebulke )

Fig. 9 – Seal 1 (From Teissier 1984, 320, fig. 231)

87

8 88 8

NATHAN WASSERMAN

Fig. 10 – Seal 2 (From Meissner 1934, 18, Abb. 13)

Fig. 11 – Medical instruments from Mesopotamia (From Heeßel 2008, 414., Abb. 302)

[RA 102