Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T12:07:53.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legend of the kiškanu

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

S. Langdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Cuneiform Texts of the British Museum, vol. xvi, 46, 183–204, occurs, in the body of the text of a long incantation, including a legend of the Fire God, Gibil, and the seven devils, the well-known legend of the plant kiškānû, which is otherwise unknown in medical and magical texts. The bilingual text in six long columns has been admirably pieced together by Dr. R. C. Thompson, who also gave an edition in Devils and Evil Spirits, vol. i, 184–201. It had been previously edited in both editions of iv, Rawlinson, pl. 15, but without several duplicates and joins latterly made by Thompson. The lines concerning the giš-kìn = kiškānu plant occur in the middle of Rev. I. A great many editions of this legend have been made; for the literature on earlier editions, see Dhorme's translation in his Choix de Textes Religieux, 98; Ebeling in Gressmann's Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, 328. All editions suffered from one defect; they were based upon the Accadian text, which is not original and is often an incorrect version of the Sumerian. That the legend is originally of Sumerian origin is clear from the Sumerian tablet from Susa published by Dr. Leon Legrain in Délegation en Perse, xiv, 125, No. 9, and photograph, pi. xi. By comparing the two texts the similarity of phrases and style is at once evident. In contrast to these editions, Mr. C. J. Gadd gave an edition of CT. xvi, 46, in his Sumerian Reading Book, 165, which he correctly based upon the Sumerian text.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , October 1928 , pp. 843 - 848
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 844 note 1 I.e. of Enki. On nuru = nunurra = Enki, v. JSOR. v, 82–3.

page 844 note 2 CT. 16, 46, 183, kiskil-ta mú-a= ina ašri ibbani. Rather mu = aṣûša iṣi. Sumerian has participial construction.

page 844 note 3 Var. 187, ki-du-du-a-ni “where it stands”, abides. For kur= irsitu, Var. has eridug- (ki)-ga, Eridu.

page 844 note 4 Var. 187, ǵegal-si-ga-ám, and súg-súg-ga-a. Cf. ǵe-gál súg-ga, in the Hymn of Eridu, AJSL. 39, 167, 16.

page 844 note 5 Apin “plough”, but there is a mythological meaning here which is obscure. In PBS. x, 189, 14, the AL instrument is described, [giš-gig]-ba apin-zagin-kam, whose shadow is like the apin of lazuli, and in Raw. iv, 5, No. 22, 4, the temple of Kish is called a-pi-in lāg-ga = apinnu ibbu. Var. 193 compares the shadow of the house of the River God to gišutir = kistu “forest”. Since apin certainly contains the word a, water, and APIN(uru) = erēšu, irritate, and APIN-tu = erištu, merištu, verdure (ThDangin, , Bituete, 138, 304)Google Scholar, it is possible that apin = kištu, forest.

page 844 note 6 Cf. Var. 185; and giš-gig-zu ab-śag-ga lá-a, AJSL. 39, 167, 19.

page 845 note 1 Written A-BU-HA-DU, as in OBI. 87, i, 32, where a Var. has A -BU-SI-DU, i.e. ši-bu(r)-du, hence ḫa-bûr> ši-bûr in A-HA-(ki) = šubaru, BL. 115, n. 2. This name is usually written Nin-ḫabur-sil-du, CT. 25, 49, Rev. 1. Since the Var. in OBI. 87 removes all doubt concerning the reading ḫabur > šibur for A-ḪA, and CT. 25, 49, Rev. 1 explains the name by bilit telilti and bêltu ālikat sulê [ŝubari?] “she that walks the street of [Šubaru, lower world], sil-du must = ālikat sulê. In A-BU-ḪA-DU, BU or sir is either a gloss on 4(bur), i.e. ḫa-bu = ḫabur, or it is a variant of sil = sir = sulû. For A (pu), v. Br. 11444, nar A-rat, i.e. Purat, and Boissier, Choix, 192, 16. But if bu be taken as a gloss on A then there is no word for sulû “street”, in the name, and it is written Nin-A-ḪA-BU-TAR-DU in RA. 20, 99, iii, 2. I take bu as a gloss on A, and suppose that the original word was Nin-ǵa-bur-du “Queen that walks in Habur”, and that sil “street” is a later addition. See BL. 115, n. 2.

page 845 note 2 Cf. AJSL. 28, 226, § 52, 15.

page 845 note 3 This refers to é-kug-ga-a-ni-ta = ina bîtu ellu, Var. 193. For the mythological chamber of Enki ina nagab apsî, v. CT. 16, 15, B. 24.

page 846 note 1 I.e. the “dark kiŝkānū”, distinguished from the white, red, yellow, varieties, MVAG. 1913, 2, p. 14, i, 7–11; hence Thompson, and Pearson, , suggest astralagus, Devils and Evil Spirits, i, p. lviiiGoogle Scholar.

page 846 note 2 Subject Enki, in 1. 187. Same syntax in Susa tablet, 1 ff.

page 846 note 3 Var. ni-lá-e, which construes the line as a relative phrase, but the verb should then be subjunctive, ni-lá-a.

page 846 note 4 Var. has ki “where”, omitted by other texts. Susa tablet, 6–7, ku-du-a-ni (vowel harmony), and ki-du-du-ni, which is better. The syntax demands a suffixed inflection ni in this relative form. See Sum. Gr., § 183.

page 846 note 5 “Where it stands, lives.”

page 846 note 6 The Accadian syntax is difficult, malāti is construed with tallakta-šu, but then ša Ea tallakta-šu is construed by analogy of Sumerian syntax (anticipative construct § 138), as “Of Ea- his habitat”! I cannot find an example of ša used as a substitute for agency, “by”, but it is employed as substitute for the instrumental case, ša ḫuraṣi epušu(who) made it with gold, KAH. ii, 103, 6, etc. The Sumerian construction is adopted in Ebeling's translation, and the Accadian instrumental use of ŝa is adopted by Thompson as in my translation. The Susa tablet still goes on with the participial construction and the independent verb is broken away, Obv. 14.

page 847 note 1 Also dId, possible.

page 847 note 2 du, by vowel harmony for da, Sum. Gr., § 57; ne emphatic suffix in both independent and dependent verbal forms. Cf. Susa tablet, Obv. 8–9.

page 847 note 3 On this ophidian title of Tammuz, v. Tammuz and Ishtar, 114 ff.

page 847 note 4 Restored from K. 4147, 7–8, in RA. 17, 132. dKa-ǵe-gál-la occurs in CT. 24, 37, 97 in a list of inferior deities of the court of Nergal. For d-Igi-ǵe-gal, the text (by Thompson and Gadd) has igi-dumu-gál; this reading must be an error; for CT. 24, 29, 107, A–B, and Var. 17, 60–1, have Ka-ǵe-gál and Igi-ǵe-gal, among the eight watchmen, (ni-duǵ) of Enki, who are clearly identical with the deities in line 199 and on K. 4147. The old copy of CT. 24, 17, in ii Raw. 56, 61–2, had the same error, and it is repeated in Brünnow, Nos. 642, 9321; and by Deimel, Pantheon, No. 1654. The same pair recurs in the old Sumerian list, RA. 20, 98, iii, 4–5 with La-ǵa-ma-abzu as on K. 4147 and CT. 24, 29, 112, has dLa-ǵa-ma-abzu (text ǵa-la-ma!) amelu ha'it Eridu “watchman of Bridu”, Sum. galu-e. Laḫhama-abzu is apparently a male deity, but Laḫama is a female, v. Langdon, Epic of Creation, 68, n. 3. Note Laḫamun= Zarbanit of Dilmun, CT. 25, 35, 12. K. 4147 has a similar e-nu-ru incantation:— “2. Go thou (Marduk) 3. to the god Kulla go (O Marduk), 4. go thou to the river, which makes glad the heart, 5. go thou to the house of the deep, which makes happy the heart; 6. when thou enterest into the deep may Kahegal, Igihegal and Laḫama-abzu pray for thee. 10. When thou to Enki, thy father, and Damgalnunna, thy mother . . .”

page 848 note 1 For.ff HU(pag) = eṣīru, v. Zimolong, Ass. 523, iv, 34. The verb should be plural, pag-eš. The restoration tù, for šiptu, depends upon whether abzu is employed in the sense of a deity Apsû; for tù is used of deities only. Gadd's restoration nam-šub is also possible.

page 848 note 2 The text then reverts to the ordinary description of the demons. In line 207, read šu-dib-ba-igi-bi = ṣābit ḳati pani-šu.