DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57036#0043
30
Bannlösung (nam-erim-bür-ru-da)
transmitted upon a single tablet.39 Such an approach permitted
textual brevity. Additionally. certain Strands of action depicted
in detail in other texts are unobserved within some tersely
constructed therapy descriptions. although the logic of the
procedure demands their performance.40 It can thus be securely
deduced that therapy descriptions emphasise certain aspects of a
healing procedure and neglect or omit others. even when these
would have been observed in the actual performance. On such
grounds. it is almost impossible in some cases to determine as to
whether the absence of sections in contrast to a comprehensive
version was merely of a redactional nature. or as to whether
it must be concluded from the lack of such passages that such
a version of a therapy description actually recommended a
shortened form of the treatment.41 Just as the ‘guide’. the therapy
descriptions were invariably transmitted upon single-column
tablets.
In what follows. the spccific features of the six idcntifiablc
therapy descriptions will be briefly characterised:
Therapy Description 1 (here Text no. 3) belongs to the tablet
inventory from the so-called House of the Incantation Priest.
While abbreviated in comparison to the ‘guide’. it contains a
complete portrait of the healing treatment named nam-erim-
bür-ru-da. It is preceded by an extensive description of
Symptoms makingclearon grounds of whichdiagnosis the healing
treatment described should be performed. The therapy should be
undertaken while the illness provoked by a “ban” was still in its
early stages. in order to lessen the magnitude of its progress. It
seems that the curative treatment outlined is configured as being
markedly less elaborate than that sketched within the ‘guide’.
The long litanies with petitions for "dispelling”. for example.
are totally missing. Moreover. no mention may be found of
the physiotherapeutic treatment of the patient as is extensively
described in the ‘guide’. Within Therapy Description 1. the
recommended handling of the personified ban is very much
central. The treatment of the invalid is therein completely
omitted. albeit there can hardly be any doubt that this individual
must at the very least have undergone various purifications over
the course of the therapy.42 * * * Hence. Text no. 3 would appear to
39 On this phenomenon. well-known from the healers' Corpus, see
S.M.Maul. BaF 18. 33b. 39. fn. 3. 53b. 119a. 121b. 170. fn. 131. 204-210.
401a. Within the procedural instmctions of Therapy Description 1 (here
Text no. 3) are. for example. neither the marriage of the patient with
the personified ban. nor the subsequent divorce mentioned. although it
must evidently follow from the corresponding dicenda that marriage and
divorce must be accomplished in a symbolic act between the invalid and a
figurine depicting the ban.
40 For example. in Therapy Description 2 (here Text no. 4-10). great Store
is placed upon in which männer the ill bom of the ban is to be seized and
eliminated. This aspect. of elementary significance for the success of a
procedure for the dispelling of aban. receives little to no shrift in the short
therapy descriptions.
41 More and less exacting forms of treatment must doubtless have existed.
The ideal' therapy depicted in the Guide' demands so great an Investment
in time and goods that it could only have been performed for the most
prominent members of society. As it displays an entire array of Steps in
treatment which repeat themselves with only minor deviation, it might be
markedly shortened without any essential loss of substance.
42 It is conceivable that a männer of partial script' is here represented which
only portrays the role of a single member within a team of healers. The
omission of the treatment of the patient would thereby be well explained.
While there are various intimations that therapies such as those here
investigated were collectively performed by multiple experts. hard
evidence confirming this assumption remains elusive. Nevertheless. in the
case of the curative treatment termed Surpii, the division of labour within
the therapy's execution is demonstrable. In the corresponding Guide',
the leading healer is addressed in the second person singulär, while the
present a therapeutic description which does not seek to portray
the procedure of dispelling a ban in its entirety with its sundry
aspects; Therapy Description 1 seems rather to be a männer of
aide-memoire which only conveyed to the healer the most vital
information necessary to the ‘creation’. arraignment. judgement.
and elimination of the ban.
Therapy Description 2 was reconstructed from seven
different manuscripts (here Text no. 4-10). Two of these (no. 4
and no. 5). hailing from the tablet corpus of the so-called House
of the Incantation Priest and written down by the healer Kisir-
Assur in different phases of his Professional career. represent the
edition of a therapy description originally consisting of at least
two tablets connected to each another by means of catchlines.
Only the first of these is known to have survived. It contains the
depiction of an initial section of the procedure for dispelling a
ban. essentially corresponding to the proceedings outlined in lines
1 ’—25’ of the ‘guide’. In some features. Therapy Description 2
is more detailed than the depictionknownfrom the ‘guide’. This
applies. on the one hand. to the agenda and dicenda. by means
of which the preconditions should be established for the
transferring of the illness-inducing forces caused by the ban back
onto the personified ban itself;43 on the other hand. procedures
unmentioned in other descriptions serving to neutralise and
eliminate these pathogenic forces are stressed. The therapy is
recommended for when the ban had already "revealed its potency
in the body of the individual”, and displayed itself repeatedly in
red and yellow blotches on the head of the afflicted. Thus. in
contrast to Therapy Description 1. this Symptom intimates that
the illness to be cured had already reached an advanced stage.
Text no. 6. also unearthed in the healers’ house. contains a
version of Therapy Description 2 so heavily abbreviated that it
could be realised on a single tablet. The initial 64 lines contain
the edition known from textual witnesses nos. 4-5. In what
follows. the passages conceming the removal of the pathogenic
forces taking grip of the patient (Text no. 4 and duplicates
65-105) along with the still unknown passages which ensued
are omitted. Nevertheless. the description of the final phase of
the process of dispelling a ban corresponds with the portrayal
known from Therapy Description 1 down to the closest detail.
The tablet’s subscript demonstrates that Text no. 6 was tied to a
broader context. Text no. 6 belonged to an otherwise unknown
sequence of tablets devoted to the treatment of a feverish ailment
called setu. From the perspective of the healers. setu presented
similar indications of malady to those of the affliction of the ban.
and could serve as its precursor.44
As in Text no. 6. the Middle Assyrian version of Therapy
Description 2. also originating from Assur (here Text no. 7).
likely contains an abbreviated version of Therapy Description 2
noted down upon a single tablet. following the first 64 lines of
the version known from textual witnesses no. 4-5. save for the
presence of a single incantation. Inasmuch as the text breaks at
this juncture. it is unclear as to whether the Middle Assyrian
recension further corresponded to the wording of Text no. 4-5.
individual charged with supervising the patient and. for example. mbbing
him with flour (luISIB = isippu) is discussed in the third person (LKA 91;
seeE. Reiner. Surpu. 11-12).
43 These sections essentially comprise of the personified ban's 'payment'.
44 The illness termed setu was treated in a contribution from M. Stol in
I. L. Finkel. M. J. Geller (eds.). CM 36. 22-39. On the proximity perceived
between these two ailments. see the commentary on Text no. 4-10. 15 "
and also Text no. 79. 69'.
Bannlösung (nam-erim-bür-ru-da)
transmitted upon a single tablet.39 Such an approach permitted
textual brevity. Additionally. certain Strands of action depicted
in detail in other texts are unobserved within some tersely
constructed therapy descriptions. although the logic of the
procedure demands their performance.40 It can thus be securely
deduced that therapy descriptions emphasise certain aspects of a
healing procedure and neglect or omit others. even when these
would have been observed in the actual performance. On such
grounds. it is almost impossible in some cases to determine as to
whether the absence of sections in contrast to a comprehensive
version was merely of a redactional nature. or as to whether
it must be concluded from the lack of such passages that such
a version of a therapy description actually recommended a
shortened form of the treatment.41 Just as the ‘guide’. the therapy
descriptions were invariably transmitted upon single-column
tablets.
In what follows. the spccific features of the six idcntifiablc
therapy descriptions will be briefly characterised:
Therapy Description 1 (here Text no. 3) belongs to the tablet
inventory from the so-called House of the Incantation Priest.
While abbreviated in comparison to the ‘guide’. it contains a
complete portrait of the healing treatment named nam-erim-
bür-ru-da. It is preceded by an extensive description of
Symptoms makingclearon grounds of whichdiagnosis the healing
treatment described should be performed. The therapy should be
undertaken while the illness provoked by a “ban” was still in its
early stages. in order to lessen the magnitude of its progress. It
seems that the curative treatment outlined is configured as being
markedly less elaborate than that sketched within the ‘guide’.
The long litanies with petitions for "dispelling”. for example.
are totally missing. Moreover. no mention may be found of
the physiotherapeutic treatment of the patient as is extensively
described in the ‘guide’. Within Therapy Description 1. the
recommended handling of the personified ban is very much
central. The treatment of the invalid is therein completely
omitted. albeit there can hardly be any doubt that this individual
must at the very least have undergone various purifications over
the course of the therapy.42 * * * Hence. Text no. 3 would appear to
39 On this phenomenon. well-known from the healers' Corpus, see
S.M.Maul. BaF 18. 33b. 39. fn. 3. 53b. 119a. 121b. 170. fn. 131. 204-210.
401a. Within the procedural instmctions of Therapy Description 1 (here
Text no. 3) are. for example. neither the marriage of the patient with
the personified ban. nor the subsequent divorce mentioned. although it
must evidently follow from the corresponding dicenda that marriage and
divorce must be accomplished in a symbolic act between the invalid and a
figurine depicting the ban.
40 For example. in Therapy Description 2 (here Text no. 4-10). great Store
is placed upon in which männer the ill bom of the ban is to be seized and
eliminated. This aspect. of elementary significance for the success of a
procedure for the dispelling of aban. receives little to no shrift in the short
therapy descriptions.
41 More and less exacting forms of treatment must doubtless have existed.
The ideal' therapy depicted in the Guide' demands so great an Investment
in time and goods that it could only have been performed for the most
prominent members of society. As it displays an entire array of Steps in
treatment which repeat themselves with only minor deviation, it might be
markedly shortened without any essential loss of substance.
42 It is conceivable that a männer of partial script' is here represented which
only portrays the role of a single member within a team of healers. The
omission of the treatment of the patient would thereby be well explained.
While there are various intimations that therapies such as those here
investigated were collectively performed by multiple experts. hard
evidence confirming this assumption remains elusive. Nevertheless. in the
case of the curative treatment termed Surpii, the division of labour within
the therapy's execution is demonstrable. In the corresponding Guide',
the leading healer is addressed in the second person singulär, while the
present a therapeutic description which does not seek to portray
the procedure of dispelling a ban in its entirety with its sundry
aspects; Therapy Description 1 seems rather to be a männer of
aide-memoire which only conveyed to the healer the most vital
information necessary to the ‘creation’. arraignment. judgement.
and elimination of the ban.
Therapy Description 2 was reconstructed from seven
different manuscripts (here Text no. 4-10). Two of these (no. 4
and no. 5). hailing from the tablet corpus of the so-called House
of the Incantation Priest and written down by the healer Kisir-
Assur in different phases of his Professional career. represent the
edition of a therapy description originally consisting of at least
two tablets connected to each another by means of catchlines.
Only the first of these is known to have survived. It contains the
depiction of an initial section of the procedure for dispelling a
ban. essentially corresponding to the proceedings outlined in lines
1 ’—25’ of the ‘guide’. In some features. Therapy Description 2
is more detailed than the depictionknownfrom the ‘guide’. This
applies. on the one hand. to the agenda and dicenda. by means
of which the preconditions should be established for the
transferring of the illness-inducing forces caused by the ban back
onto the personified ban itself;43 on the other hand. procedures
unmentioned in other descriptions serving to neutralise and
eliminate these pathogenic forces are stressed. The therapy is
recommended for when the ban had already "revealed its potency
in the body of the individual”, and displayed itself repeatedly in
red and yellow blotches on the head of the afflicted. Thus. in
contrast to Therapy Description 1. this Symptom intimates that
the illness to be cured had already reached an advanced stage.
Text no. 6. also unearthed in the healers’ house. contains a
version of Therapy Description 2 so heavily abbreviated that it
could be realised on a single tablet. The initial 64 lines contain
the edition known from textual witnesses nos. 4-5. In what
follows. the passages conceming the removal of the pathogenic
forces taking grip of the patient (Text no. 4 and duplicates
65-105) along with the still unknown passages which ensued
are omitted. Nevertheless. the description of the final phase of
the process of dispelling a ban corresponds with the portrayal
known from Therapy Description 1 down to the closest detail.
The tablet’s subscript demonstrates that Text no. 6 was tied to a
broader context. Text no. 6 belonged to an otherwise unknown
sequence of tablets devoted to the treatment of a feverish ailment
called setu. From the perspective of the healers. setu presented
similar indications of malady to those of the affliction of the ban.
and could serve as its precursor.44
As in Text no. 6. the Middle Assyrian version of Therapy
Description 2. also originating from Assur (here Text no. 7).
likely contains an abbreviated version of Therapy Description 2
noted down upon a single tablet. following the first 64 lines of
the version known from textual witnesses no. 4-5. save for the
presence of a single incantation. Inasmuch as the text breaks at
this juncture. it is unclear as to whether the Middle Assyrian
recension further corresponded to the wording of Text no. 4-5.
individual charged with supervising the patient and. for example. mbbing
him with flour (luISIB = isippu) is discussed in the third person (LKA 91;
seeE. Reiner. Surpu. 11-12).
43 These sections essentially comprise of the personified ban's 'payment'.
44 The illness termed setu was treated in a contribution from M. Stol in
I. L. Finkel. M. J. Geller (eds.). CM 36. 22-39. On the proximity perceived
between these two ailments. see the commentary on Text no. 4-10. 15 "
and also Text no. 79. 69'.