DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57036#0042
Introduction
29
Here fitting was the fact that these prayers were fumished with
the subscript ka-inim-ma nam-erim-bür-ru-da-käm22 or.
indeed. nam-erim-bür-ru-da-käm.23 The aforementioned
Sumerian incantation with the subscript ka-inim-ma nam-
erim-bür-ru-da-ke4 transmitted in the tract entitled Surpu
("Buming”) is also prescribed for recitation within the newly
discovered ‘guide’.24 and the same was demonstrable for other.
long-published texts bearing the same Sumerian subscript. The
‘ guide ’ had thus delivered solid proof that the healing instructions
and recitations seemingly independent of one another did. in
fact. together form a greater whole.
2.2. Fürther Texts on the Dispelling of a Ban
Nevertheless. many further incipits named in the ‘guide’ were
unknown. Some of these would come to be rediscovered from
the long-uninspected tablet fragments from the so-called House
of the Incantation Priest. Indeed. a systematic search bore ample
fruits. From the published and unpublished tablet fragments could
accordingly be reconstructed not only the course of the procedure
for dispelling a ban in all of its details. ranging well beyond
the Statements of the ‘guide’. but also practically the entire set
of prayers and incantations accompanying it. With the aid of a
total of 29 new textual joins from fragments of little informative
value. more or less complete tablets could be reassembled over the
course of the years. and thus those of the healers’ writings devoted
to the ban dispelling procedure reconstituted in their near entirety.
From the 81 textual witnesses here presented. 26 hail from
the stock of tablets discovered in the house of the healers in
Assur.25 Only a single text can be proven to originale from the
Temple of Assur.26 Accompanying these are 20 textual witnesses
from Assur inscribed in the Neo-Assyrian period and unearthed
from find contexts which might no longer be deduced.27 and.
in tum. three further examples from the late Middle Assyrian
epoch.28 Almost all remaining manuscripts documenting the
procedure for dispelling a ban provenance from the Assyrian
cities of Nineveh,29 Kalhu.30 and Huzinna.31 or from now
unknown locations within the Assyrian cultural sphere.32 With
two Neo-Babylonian tablets from Sippar.33 a further example
from Babylon.34 and a Middle Babylonian tablet from Nippur,35
only a scarce few appurtenant textual witnesses might be
demonstrated to have been inscribed beyond Assyria’s pale.
22 Text no. 27-33. 122 and Text no. 34-37. 91 (therein: ka-inim-ma
nam-erim-bür-da).
23 Text no. 16-26. 7 ".
24 See Text no. 1-2. 10" and the accompanying commentary.
25 Texts nos. 1-6. 13-15. 17-18. 32. 35. 43. 44. 64. 68, 71. and 73-80.
26 Text no. 66.
27 Texts nos. 11. 16. 19. 22. 23-26. 41. 47. 54. 56, 58. 59. 60. 62. 63. 65. 67.
and 72. Texts nos. 41.47. 54. 59. 62. and 63 display an early Neo-Assyrian
ductus.
28 Texts nos. 7 (late Middle Assyrian or early Neo-Assyrian. find context
unknown). 46 (from the Exorcist's Library from the Old Palace) and 57
(find context unknown).
29 Texts nos. 8. 9. 12. 21. 27-31. 33. 37. 45. 48-52. 55. and 69.
30 Texts nos. 10. 34. 39. 40. and 42.
31 Text no. 20.
32 Texts no. 36 and 70 (the latter potentially from Assur).
33 Texts nos. 38 and 61.
34 Text no. 53.
35 Text no. 81.
Nevertheless. it would be premature and. indeed. ultimately
incorrect to consider the healing treatment termed nam-erim-
bür-ru-da to be a genuinely Assyrian procedure. The mention
in the Curriculum of the healers. doubtless of Babylonian origin.
already contradicts this. Furthermore. an attestation for an early
practice of the ban dispelling procedure in Babylonia may be
noted in the fact that dicenda were already transmitted in the Old
Babylonian period fumished with the subscript ka-inim-ma
tu-ra x x x [ ] / [ ] nam-erim-bür-da-käm.36
Procedures for dispelling a ban must thus have already
existed in the Old Babylonian period. and they were designated
with the Sumerian appellation of nam-erim-bür-ru-da in
those days as well. It is thereby more than likely that those
dicenda transmitted in the first millennium BCE within the
healing treatment termed Surpu which should affect a dispelling
of a ban were borrowed from the ban-dispelling procedure called
nam-erim-bür-ru-da. and not vice versa.
The high esteem enjoyed by the texts on dispelling a ban
among ancient Near Eastem scholars of the Erst millennium
BCE may be judged in the fact that. within a commentary on
the cuneiform prognostic and diagnostic handbook.37 a line is
explicitly referenced from the written edition of a work entitled
nam-erim-bür-ru-da.38
Nevertheless the collection of writings on the dispelling of
a ban here presented demonstrate that the instructions for the
conducting of this procedure were not textually fixed within
one single binding edition. In Assur. at the very least, different
versions were simultaneously in use. each of these possessing its
own history of transmission and being clearly distinguished by
its extensiveness and respective focus.
2.2.1. Description of the curative treatment termed
nam-erim-bür-ru-da (Textsnos. 3-15)
The exemplars of the Erst group of rediscovered writings on ban
dispelling are here termed ‘therapy descriptions’. Six different
texts of this type could be idcntificd. Like the ‘guide’. they may
be characterised as descriptions of the procedure for dispelling
a ban. within which instructions record the crucial Steps of the
therapy to be undertaken. The therapy descriptions distinguish
themselves mainly from the ‘guide’ inasmuch as the dicenda
within them are not only named by their incipit. but. as a rule.
formulated in full. This prompts a problem closely bound to
the nature of the clay tablet as a medium for writing. As space
is restricted upon a clay tablet. and only a limited number of
lines from a text can be consigned to writing thereupon. such
a description of a therapy must either be apportioned between
several tablets or shortened in a way that it can nevertheless be
realised upon a single clay tablet. Both possible Solutions might
be evidenced within the corpus herein presented.
It is striking that the agenda necessarily linked to the dicenda
frequently remain unmentioned in the therapy descriptions
36 CT 4. Pt. 3 (Bu 1888-5-12. 6). 35-36; see the commentary on Text
no. 1-2. lacuna (before 1. 1”). On further dicenda already attested in the
Old Babylonian period and incorporated into the ban dispelling procedure
in a later period. see the commentary on Text no. 4-10. 106 and Text
no. 1-2. 9". and also the introductory commentary on Text no. 81.
37 On the Prognostic and Diagnostic Handbook. see J. Scurlock. Sourcebook.
13-271. R. Labat. TDP and N. P. Heeßel. Babylonisch-assyrische
Diagnostik.
38 SeeA. R. George. RA85. 146-147 and 154 on Commentary' 3 a.
29
Here fitting was the fact that these prayers were fumished with
the subscript ka-inim-ma nam-erim-bür-ru-da-käm22 or.
indeed. nam-erim-bür-ru-da-käm.23 The aforementioned
Sumerian incantation with the subscript ka-inim-ma nam-
erim-bür-ru-da-ke4 transmitted in the tract entitled Surpu
("Buming”) is also prescribed for recitation within the newly
discovered ‘guide’.24 and the same was demonstrable for other.
long-published texts bearing the same Sumerian subscript. The
‘ guide ’ had thus delivered solid proof that the healing instructions
and recitations seemingly independent of one another did. in
fact. together form a greater whole.
2.2. Fürther Texts on the Dispelling of a Ban
Nevertheless. many further incipits named in the ‘guide’ were
unknown. Some of these would come to be rediscovered from
the long-uninspected tablet fragments from the so-called House
of the Incantation Priest. Indeed. a systematic search bore ample
fruits. From the published and unpublished tablet fragments could
accordingly be reconstructed not only the course of the procedure
for dispelling a ban in all of its details. ranging well beyond
the Statements of the ‘guide’. but also practically the entire set
of prayers and incantations accompanying it. With the aid of a
total of 29 new textual joins from fragments of little informative
value. more or less complete tablets could be reassembled over the
course of the years. and thus those of the healers’ writings devoted
to the ban dispelling procedure reconstituted in their near entirety.
From the 81 textual witnesses here presented. 26 hail from
the stock of tablets discovered in the house of the healers in
Assur.25 Only a single text can be proven to originale from the
Temple of Assur.26 Accompanying these are 20 textual witnesses
from Assur inscribed in the Neo-Assyrian period and unearthed
from find contexts which might no longer be deduced.27 and.
in tum. three further examples from the late Middle Assyrian
epoch.28 Almost all remaining manuscripts documenting the
procedure for dispelling a ban provenance from the Assyrian
cities of Nineveh,29 Kalhu.30 and Huzinna.31 or from now
unknown locations within the Assyrian cultural sphere.32 With
two Neo-Babylonian tablets from Sippar.33 a further example
from Babylon.34 and a Middle Babylonian tablet from Nippur,35
only a scarce few appurtenant textual witnesses might be
demonstrated to have been inscribed beyond Assyria’s pale.
22 Text no. 27-33. 122 and Text no. 34-37. 91 (therein: ka-inim-ma
nam-erim-bür-da).
23 Text no. 16-26. 7 ".
24 See Text no. 1-2. 10" and the accompanying commentary.
25 Texts nos. 1-6. 13-15. 17-18. 32. 35. 43. 44. 64. 68, 71. and 73-80.
26 Text no. 66.
27 Texts nos. 11. 16. 19. 22. 23-26. 41. 47. 54. 56, 58. 59. 60. 62. 63. 65. 67.
and 72. Texts nos. 41.47. 54. 59. 62. and 63 display an early Neo-Assyrian
ductus.
28 Texts nos. 7 (late Middle Assyrian or early Neo-Assyrian. find context
unknown). 46 (from the Exorcist's Library from the Old Palace) and 57
(find context unknown).
29 Texts nos. 8. 9. 12. 21. 27-31. 33. 37. 45. 48-52. 55. and 69.
30 Texts nos. 10. 34. 39. 40. and 42.
31 Text no. 20.
32 Texts no. 36 and 70 (the latter potentially from Assur).
33 Texts nos. 38 and 61.
34 Text no. 53.
35 Text no. 81.
Nevertheless. it would be premature and. indeed. ultimately
incorrect to consider the healing treatment termed nam-erim-
bür-ru-da to be a genuinely Assyrian procedure. The mention
in the Curriculum of the healers. doubtless of Babylonian origin.
already contradicts this. Furthermore. an attestation for an early
practice of the ban dispelling procedure in Babylonia may be
noted in the fact that dicenda were already transmitted in the Old
Babylonian period fumished with the subscript ka-inim-ma
tu-ra x x x [ ] / [ ] nam-erim-bür-da-käm.36
Procedures for dispelling a ban must thus have already
existed in the Old Babylonian period. and they were designated
with the Sumerian appellation of nam-erim-bür-ru-da in
those days as well. It is thereby more than likely that those
dicenda transmitted in the first millennium BCE within the
healing treatment termed Surpu which should affect a dispelling
of a ban were borrowed from the ban-dispelling procedure called
nam-erim-bür-ru-da. and not vice versa.
The high esteem enjoyed by the texts on dispelling a ban
among ancient Near Eastem scholars of the Erst millennium
BCE may be judged in the fact that. within a commentary on
the cuneiform prognostic and diagnostic handbook.37 a line is
explicitly referenced from the written edition of a work entitled
nam-erim-bür-ru-da.38
Nevertheless the collection of writings on the dispelling of
a ban here presented demonstrate that the instructions for the
conducting of this procedure were not textually fixed within
one single binding edition. In Assur. at the very least, different
versions were simultaneously in use. each of these possessing its
own history of transmission and being clearly distinguished by
its extensiveness and respective focus.
2.2.1. Description of the curative treatment termed
nam-erim-bür-ru-da (Textsnos. 3-15)
The exemplars of the Erst group of rediscovered writings on ban
dispelling are here termed ‘therapy descriptions’. Six different
texts of this type could be idcntificd. Like the ‘guide’. they may
be characterised as descriptions of the procedure for dispelling
a ban. within which instructions record the crucial Steps of the
therapy to be undertaken. The therapy descriptions distinguish
themselves mainly from the ‘guide’ inasmuch as the dicenda
within them are not only named by their incipit. but. as a rule.
formulated in full. This prompts a problem closely bound to
the nature of the clay tablet as a medium for writing. As space
is restricted upon a clay tablet. and only a limited number of
lines from a text can be consigned to writing thereupon. such
a description of a therapy must either be apportioned between
several tablets or shortened in a way that it can nevertheless be
realised upon a single clay tablet. Both possible Solutions might
be evidenced within the corpus herein presented.
It is striking that the agenda necessarily linked to the dicenda
frequently remain unmentioned in the therapy descriptions
36 CT 4. Pt. 3 (Bu 1888-5-12. 6). 35-36; see the commentary on Text
no. 1-2. lacuna (before 1. 1”). On further dicenda already attested in the
Old Babylonian period and incorporated into the ban dispelling procedure
in a later period. see the commentary on Text no. 4-10. 106 and Text
no. 1-2. 9". and also the introductory commentary on Text no. 81.
37 On the Prognostic and Diagnostic Handbook. see J. Scurlock. Sourcebook.
13-271. R. Labat. TDP and N. P. Heeßel. Babylonisch-assyrische
Diagnostik.
38 SeeA. R. George. RA85. 146-147 and 154 on Commentary' 3 a.