Looking for Glinda: Wise Women and Benevolent Magic in Old Babylonian Literary Texts

Introduction

Across the wide span of Mesopotamian textual history, from the late third to the late first millennia bce, the figure of the witch appears as one of a large number of antagonistic, if not outright malevolent, beings. Many of these occupy profiles akin to monsters and demons and are described with masculine traits or explicitly stated to be neither male nor female. The witch, however, along with such threats as the demon Lamaštu and the succubus-like ardat lilî, is represented in terms of her feminine qualities. Lamaštu is characterized as an inversion of the figure of the mother and wet nurse, preying on infants in particular, nursing them with her poisonous milk.¹ Similarly, the ardat lilî, who was the ghost of a woman who died unmarried, drifted in from the Netherworld on the wind, disturbing men while they slept.² Although the witch is not necessarily as deliberate a seductress as the ardat lilî, her demonic and chaotic power is still often couched in terms of her sex. From these examples, it seems apparent that connections between women and magic in Mesopotamia are overwhelmingly negative in nature. Despite the dominant presence of these antagonistic figures, there are others who do not conform to this pattern of malevolent magic wielded by similarly malevolent women, though these are scarce and often isolated exceptions.³ Indeed, in contrast to the prolific appearances of the witch as an antagonistic figure, she appears benevolently only once within the entire corpus of Sumerian literature, as the “wise woman” Sagburu in the Old Babylonian text Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna.⁴⬈#p1

Even classifying Sagburu as a witch is difficult, yet the witch is our only other major avenue for the practice of magic – albeit aggressive magic – by women in Mesopotamia.⁵ A number of terms in Akkadian and Sumerian may be used to describe the witch, but Sagburu is not directly connected to any of them. The most common equivalence among terms for “witch” is between the Sumerian uš₇-zu (or munus-uš₇-zu) and the Akkadian kaššāptu.⁶ The male version of this term (kaššāpu) does exist, but he is often found paired with his more popular female counterpart, rather than appearing alone. The word “witch” may cover a range of semantic grounds in different cultural contexts; however, the Mesopotamian figure is defined by her malevolent appearance and actions.⁷ These are represented through particularly evocative imagery, as seen in the following text excerpted from an Old Babylonian incantation against the attack of several witches:⬈#p2

1   hul-ĝal₂ igi nu-sa₆ dumu u₄ šu₂-šu₂-ke₄⬈#p3

2   uš₇-zu lil₂ bu-bu dumu ^dereš-ki-gal-la-ka-ke₄⬈#p4

3   amalu ama uš₇-zu imin-na-ne-ne⬈#p5

4   buru₅^mušen uš₇-zu uš₇ ki tag-tag-me-eš⬈#p6

1   The evil one, the wicked eye, the child of the overwhelming storm;⬈#p7

2   Witch, fluttering lil-demon, the child of Ereškigal.⬈#p8

3   The goddesses, the arch-witches, the seven of them;⬈#p9

4   They are the swarming witches who inflict witchcraft on the earth.⁸⬈#p10

The incantation further describes the actions of the witches, who practice “sorcery against a man” (lu₂-ulu₃ niĝ₂-ak im-mi-in-ak-ak-ne) by “casting a spell on [his] food” (u₂-e uš₇ bi-in-du₁₁), which the afflicted individual had then consumed.⁹ In literal terms, the witch speaks (du₁₁) poison or spittle (uš₇) onto the food. Here, “witchcraft” is consistently written as niĝ₂-ak, as is common in other texts.¹⁰ These terms are all indicative of the witch in Mesopotamia, who is less a uniquely identified figure and more an amorphous entity that can cause all manner of harm in addition to threatening the underlying cosmic order of the universe itself.¹¹ Although she may be creatively and vividly described, she is neither named nor individually personified, and the language – in regards to both general imagery and specific vocabulary – is consistent across a variety of texts. All of these conditions, however, are violated if not wholly inverted by the magical contest seen in Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna. Sagburu occupies a benevolent role that adheres more closely to the traditionally male figure of the exorcist, while another figure within the text, a male sorcerer, is representative of many of the qualities more often connected to the witch, irrespective of gender. Though descriptions of the witch and her actions are closely tied to her gender in Mesopotamia, Sagburu is allowed to exist as an exception: a female figure who nevertheless performs benevolent magical acts.⬈#p11

The Enmerkar Epics and the Matter of Aratta

The literary epic Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna is part of a set of four interrelated Sumerian literary texts from the Old Babylonian period, which includes the connected texts Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta and Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna, as well as two texts concerned with the hero Lugalbanda, Lugalbanda in the Wilderness and The Return of Lugalbanda.¹² These four texts all express, in different ways, a contest between the Mesopotamian city of Uruk and the foreign city of Aratta. An ultimately fictional location described as being situated to the east of Mesopotamia, Aratta exists within these texts as a foil for and rival to the city of Uruk, a rivalry that is emblematic of a deep division between native and foreign.¹³⬈#p12

Throughout the four texts, Enmerkar, the king of Uruk, and Ensuhkešdanna, the ruler of Aratta, fight to prove the dominance of their city and, more specifically, compete for the favor of the goddess Inanna.¹⁴ This battle may be conducted through more open military means, as in the Lugalbanda duology, where the armies of Uruk travel to besiege to Aratta. In contrast to this more overt opposition, the Enmerkar duology allows Uruk to triumph through non-militaristic means, and thus prove Uruk’s dominance in these areas as well. In Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, the contest is conducted through a series of riddles carried by messenger between the two kings.¹⁵ The riddles become too cumbersome for the messenger to remember and relay, so Enmerkar finally records one on clay, inventing writing in the process. As Ensuhkešdanna cannot read the text, Enmerkar is victorious by default, and Uruk triumphs over Aratta.¹⁶⬈#p13

While the messenger allows the two kings to challenge each other directly in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, the contest in Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna is conducted via a more indirect proxy. The contest is a magical one, between a sorcerer (written in Sumerian as maš-maš) from the land of Aratta and the wise woman Sagburu, representative of Mesopotamia and identified specifically as coming from Ereš. These figures are each clearly representative of Ensuhkešdanna and Enmerkar, but the action has shifted locations and geographic foci.¹⁷ The text may open with challenges delivered from Ensuhkešdanna directly to Enmerkar and close with the former conceding defeat and acknowledging the supremacy of his rival, but the contest itself is conducted by their two representatives.⬈#p14

The Wise Woman and the Sorcerer from Hamazu

The sorcerer from Aratta instigates the entire affair, and his introduction establishes his the most critical aspects of his character. He first appears in the text as follows:⬈#p15

135   maš-maš dim₂-ma-ni dumu ha-ma-zu-ke₄⬈#p16

136   ur-ĝir₃-nun-na dim₂-ma-ni dumu ha-ma-zu-ke₄⬈#p17

137   ha-ma-zu hul-a-ta aratta^ki-aš bal-a⬈#pp18

138   e₂-ĝi₆-par₄ nam-maš-maš-e da^?-ga^?-na na-mu-un-KU⬈#p19

135   A sorcerer, his witchcraft was that of a son of Hamazu;⬈#p20

136   Urgirnuna, his witchcraft was that of a son of Hamazu.⬈#p21

137   When Hamazu had been destroyed, he had crossed over to Aratta;⬈#p22

138   In the inner chambers of the Egiparra he practiced sorcery.¹⁸⬈#p23

The sorcerer is thus doubly foreign: not only does he owe his allegiance to and act on behalf of the foreign city of Aratta, but he originally hails from the land of Hamazu.¹⁹ Foreign even to Aratta, with his original homeland now destroyed, he is left without a place of origin of his own. The meaning of his name is not entirely clear: the current reading may suggest a pun on the word for dog, “ur-gir₁₅,” thus suggesting “princely dog.” The reading “ur-alim-nun-na,” which would be closer to “princely bison,” has also been proposed as a reading of his name.²⁰ Either reading is a jab at the foreign sorcerer’s own inflated sense of his magical abilities. Similarly interesting is the use of maš-maš to indicate a “sorcerer,” especially one with Urgirnuna’s clearly antagonistic aims. The maš-maš most often describes a ritual practitioner, one who in later periods occupies a similar position and shared context with the āšipu, or exorcist, traditionally set in direct opposition to the witch in incantation literature. Here, in one of the earlier appearances of the word in Sumerian literature, the term is divorced of ritual context and instead only references Urgirnuna’s magical abilities.²¹⬈#p24

Urgirnuna comes to Ereš and attacks the city’s resources and means of food production, using his magical abilities to stop the cows, goats, and sheep from producing milk. He commands each animal: “your cream to your glistening horn, your milk to your back!” (i₃-zu si-muš₃-zu-še₃ ga-zu murgu-zu-še₃), thus enacting his curse solely through the power of his speech.²² The livestock are devastated after his actions, to the point that “pen and byre had become a silent house, a ruin,”²³ and this attack on the city’s means of food production prompts a shepherd and cowherd to plead to Utu, the sun god, for assistance.²⁴ The plea is presumably answered by the arrival of Sagburu; unfortunately, her own introduction occurs in a fragmentary section of the text. She is first described as traveling to Ereš, a city located “on the bank of the Euphrates … the city whose fate was fixed by An and Enlil.”²⁵⬈#p25

In characterizing Sagburu, terminology is the first hurdle. She may be most precisely, if clumsily, defined as a “non-antagonistic magic-wielding woman.” None of the terms commonly translated as witch or sorceress are applied to Sagburu, and her name offers no insight into her character.²⁶ Sagburu is instead introduced by the Sumerian word “um-ma,” most often translated as “wise woman” or “old woman.”²⁷ Attested as early as the Early Dynastic III period (2600–2300 bce) and found consistently in the Ur III period (2112–2004 bce), the term is most frequently used in literary texts from the Old Babylonian period and fades from the literary corpus afterwards.²⁸ Limiting our attention only to the attestations of the um-ma found in the Old Babylonian Literary corpus, we see the following distribution of texts wherein it appears:⬈#p26

This distribution represents a widespread but weighted frequency of the term: although it appears in fourteen texts, multiple attestations are principally found in only six of those texts. Even those cluster primarily in three texts, and the narratives of two of the texts (Dumuzi’s Dream and Inanna and Bilulu) are closely connected. In the other three texts that comprise the Aratta quartet, however, um-ma only appears one other time, in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta as a clear reference to the goddess Inanna.³⁰ Although the term is most often connected to both wisdom and age, um-ma may also indicate the presence of either a wise or an elderly woman. In Sagburu’s case, the term is tied to both, and it is her wisdom in particular that makes her more than a match for Urgirnuna.³¹⬈#p27

Sagburu and Urgirnuna immediately engage in a magical battle, taking place over five consecutive exchanges of magical transformation. Each contest follows the same general format: the two throw fish spawn (agargara) into the Euphrates river and draw out the animal they have transfigured the spawn into.³² The general pattern is illustrated in the following two exchanges:⬈#p28

228   min₃-na-ne-ne agargara id₂-da i-ni-in-šub-[bu-uš]⬈#p29

229   maš-maš-e suhur^ku6 gal a-ta im-ta-an-[e₃]⬈#p30

230   um-ma saĝ-bur-ru [hu-ri₂]-in^mušen a-ta im-ta-an-[e₃]⬈#p31

231   hu-ri₂-in^mušen-e suhur^ku6 gal in-kar hur-saĝ-še₃ ba-[an-ku₄]⬈#p32

232   min­₃-kam-ma-aš agargara id­₂-da i-ni-in-šub-bu-uš⬈#p33

233   maš-maš-e u₈ sila₄-bi a-ta im-ta-an-[e₃]⬈#p34

234   um-ma saĝ-bur-ru ur-bar-ra a-ta im-ta-an-[e₃]⬈#p35

228   Both threw fish spawn into the river.⬈#p36

229   The sorcerer drew out a big carp from the water;⬈#p37

230   The wise woman Sagburu drew out an eagle.⬈#p38

231   The eagle caught the carp and fled to the mountains.⬈#p39

232   A second time they threw fish spawn into the river.⬈#p40

233   The sorcerer drew out an ewe with a lamb from the water;⬈#p41

234   The wise woman Sagburu drew out a wolf.³³⬈#p42

Sagburu’s wolf subsequently catches and kills the sorcerer’s ewe and lamb on the open plain, and the remaining contests proceed in the same pattern. The magical acts themselves – the transformation of each animal from fish spawn – take place entirely within the waters of the river. Instead of any of the vocabulary associated more directly with antagonistic witchcraft (seen before as niĝ₂-ak…ak and uš₇…du₁₁) the two cast or throw (šub) the fish spawn into the water and bring out (e₃) the transformed animal. Overall, the contests feature the following animals set against each other:⬈#p44

In each instance, Sagburu’s animal is victorious: the lion drags his prey to the reed-marsh; the mountain lion disposes of his in the mountain ranges; and the tiger and NIM-lion finish their battle by dragging their prey to the woods (^gištir-tir). The different contests also demonstrate the full range of Sagburu’s superiority over Urgirnuna. The sorcerer’s animals are defeated in different locations: the mountains to the north and east; the reed-marshes to the south; the open steppe beyond the city; and the woods, arguably to north and west. Each location connects to a space beyond the city itself, and when placed together, they represent the absolute and encircling dominion of Sagburu’s power.⬈#p45

 Overall, the battle is designed to test both the magical skill and cleverness of the two sorcerers. Urgirnuna’s animals, which are all prey or livestock, are easily overpowered by Sagburu’s predatory beasts. Just as Urgirnuna threatened the food production of the city, her animals consume his in turn. The mechanism of transformation is expressed identically for each combatant; Sagburu is simply more skilled in selecting and creating a creature designed to counter Urgirnuna’s own. Each choice demonstrates her superior knowledge and, in a sense, her greater tactical ability.⬈#p46

Working Magic: The Fate of the Sorcerer

Following Urgirnuna’s resounding and successive defeats at the hands of Sagburu, he is dejected, his “face darkened and his mind in turmoil.”³⁴ Sagburu chastises him in a difficult but critical passage of the text, first upbraiding him for his lack of foresight in his actions, then reprimanding him for traveling to Ereš to work his magic, enumerating the qualities of the city as she speaks:⬈#p47

250   maš-maš nam-maš-maš-zu he₂-ĝal₂ dim₂-ma-zu me-a⬈#p48

251   a-na-gin₇-nam ereš₂^ki iri ^dnisaba-še₃⬈#p49

252   iri^ki nam tar-ra an ^den-lil₂-la₂⬈#p50

253   iri^ki ul iri ki-aĝ₂ ^dnin-lil₂-la₂⬈#p51

254   nam-maš-maš ak-de₃ a-gin₇ im-da-ĝin-ne-en⬈#p52

250   “Sorcerer, for all your magical knowledge, where is your common sense?⬈#p53

251   How, to Ereš, the city of Nisaba,⬈#p54

252   The city whose fate was decreed by An and Enlil,⬈#p55

253   The primeval city, the beloved city of Ninlil,⬈#p56

254   How could you have come (here) in order to work magic?”³⁵⬈#p57

It is not the sorcerer’s own magical power that is lacking; instead, he fundamentally misunderstands his proper position in the world. This passage provides the terminology for the sorcerer’s own witchcraft, as “in order to work magic” is written as “nam-maš-maš ak-de₃.” The phrase “nam-maš-maš-zu” is a clear reference to the sorcerer’s magical knowledge, contrasted with the knowledge Sagburu believes he should have demonstrated in line 250. This section of the text presents a consistent use of terms to describe Urgirnuna’s magic, terms that stand in contrast to “niĝ₂-ak,” the word for witchcraft more commonly found in incantations. Instead, the construction “nam-maš-maš ak-de₃” utilizes first the derivational morpheme “nam” to create an abstract concept from “maš-maš,” much as “lugal” would translate to “king,” but “nam-lugal” to “kingship.” The final de₃ in the line stands as marking “-ed,” indicating the sorcerer’s purpose and intent, while the verb itself, “ak,” is a versatile verb meaning “to do” or “to make.”³⁶ Much like “niĝ₂-ak,” there is no sense of malevolence directly expressed by the phrase itself, and instead only develops through the context and conditions of its use. The sorcerer chooses to employ his talents (translated literally, his “maš-maš-ship”) for antagonistic aims, just as Sagburu employs her own abilities to counter his actions. Their own actions within the text, rather than any defining terminology or category, govern the roles played by each of them.⬈#p58

The sorcerer pleads for his life, begging Sagburu to “set me free, my sister, set me free” (šu ba-mu-u₉ nin₉-ĝu₁₀ šu ba-mu-u₈), and promising to make Sagburu’s greatness known in all the lands.³⁷ These pleas fall upon deaf ears, however, as Sagburu recounts his crimes and summarily decrees her verdict and his punishment:⬈#p59

270   nir-da i₃-ĝa₂-ĝa₂ zi nu-mu-ra-ab-šum₂-mu⬈#p60

271   um-ma saĝ-bur-ru maš-maš-e unken-ni imin-ma-ni mu-ni-in-sig₃⬈#p61

272   ŝaga-a-ni gu₂ ^id₂buranun-na-ka i-ni-in-šub⬈#p62

273   zi nam-til₃-la ba-da-an-kar iri^ki-ni ereš₂^ki-še₃ ba-e-gur⬈#p63

270   “Therefore your sin is a capital offense: I cannot grant you life!”⬈#p64

271   The wise woman Sagburu confirmed her statutory verdict on the sorcerer;⬈#p65

272   She threw down her victim on the bank of the Euphrates,⬈#p66

273   Took away his vital force and returned this to her city Ereš.³⁸⬈#p67

In her final action, Sagburu casts Urgirnuna into the river, much as she has cast fish spawn into the river throughout the five contests. This action and her seizing of his vital force is more representative of her magical abilities, but in passing judgment and enacting punishment, Sagburu has also acted as the arbiter of the local authority of the city. She has furthermore disposed of Urgirnuna in a way that echoes the legal repercussions of witchcraft accusations.³⁹ Within the Code of Hammurabi, the River Ordeal is used to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual accused of the practice of witchcraft (kišpū).⁴⁰ Sagburu’s actions emphasize her central position within the city’s established order and even its bureaucracy, setting her in contrast to Urgirnuna’s marked foreignness and his disruptive behavior.⬈#p68

In the vast majority of texts it is the witch herself, a demonic and inherently chaotic figure, who is most often described as foreign.⁴¹ This trope is well represented across the body of anti-witchcraft incantations, which identify the witch in great detail so that she may be effectively combated. The longest of these, the eight-tablet ritual text Maqlû, provides some of the most detailed descriptions of the witch and her qualities.⁴² Although its date of composition is significantly later than Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna, this text remains a critical resource for information on the witch and her characteristics. The witch is referred to as foreign a number of times through the ritual, most extensively in one incantation found in its fourth tablet. Here, the witch, referred to as kaššāptu throughout, is described as an Elamite, a Gutean, a Sutean, a Lullubean, and a Hanigalbatean. It is only at the end of this list that the witch is described as non-foreign, as a native of the city.⁴³ This well-established trope of the witch as foreign is inverted by Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna.⁴⁴ By coming initially from Hamazu, the sorcerer is definitely marked as foreign-born, and that quality is further emphasized by his connection to Aratta. This foreignness stands in opposition with the emphasis placed upon Sagburu’s fully enmeshed position within the Mesopotamian heartland.⬈#p69

The text creates a further disconnect between the role each figure plays in the narrative as opposed to those more typically and traditionally occupied by male and female magical practitioners in incantations and literary texts. Sagburu is native to Mesopotamia; named and clearly described as an individual; given authority and standing within the city of Ereš; works with the consent and at the behest of the gods; and is described in terms of her wisdom and age. All these qualities allow her to hold a clearly positive role, with her magic taking a very particular role. The witch, on the other hand, is often foreign; nameless and nebulous; disturbs order; functions against the divine sphere; and threatens humanity through a wide range of her possible actions. In each instance, Sagburu serves as a counter to the witch’s more commonly ascribed traits. Several of the traits of the witch, however, are seen in Urgirnuna, such as his foreign nature and his magical attacks on the animals responsible for the city’s food production – actions, principally, that upset the natural order of the city and in turn threaten the divine, and thus cosmic, order. His connection to the witch is not a perfect one, as he too is named and characterized as an individual, and the terms used for his magic diverge from those used for “witchcraft.”⬈#p70

Neither of these figures exists in isolation, and both play very specific roles within the narrative of Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna, which have their own requirements. Urgirnuna’s position as the antagonist within Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna demands that he acquire a number of suitably malevolent traits to suit. Although the witch favors incantation literature over the corpus of Sumerian literary texts, the borders between the different textual categories within Mesopotamia are certainly malleable.⁴⁵ Furthermore, the witch, though not entirely personified, is the most prevalent example of a figure who practiced antagonistic magic. Sagburu, on the other hand and despite her sex, is cast as the inverse to many of the witch’s key characteristics, reinforcing her positive role within the text. The battle of strength and skill between Uruk and Aratta that is central to these four literary texts becomes, within the narrative of Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna, a magical battle with clearly appointed champions. In defeating the chaotic and foreign malevolence that Urgirnuna represents and restoring order, Sagburu aligns herself more closely with the āšipu, a figure as enmeshed in the bureaucratic functions of the Mesopotamian city as she also appears to be. Urgirnuna, her antagonist, reaches instead for many of the traditional hallmarks of the witch in order to bolster his own malevolent image.⬈#p71

Bibliography

Texts cited as Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna follow the edition in Vanstiphout 2003 in all quoted instances, except where otherwise noted.

Abusch, Tzvi. 1989. “The Demonic Image of the Witch in Standard Babylonian Literature: The Reworking of Popular Conceptions by Learned Exorcists.” In: Neusner, Jacob/Frerichs, Ernest S./McCracken Flesher, Paul Virgil. (eds.). Religion, Science, and Magic: in Concert and in Conflict. Oxford. 27–58.⬈#reference-1

Abusch, Tzvi. 2015a. The Witchcraft Series Maqlû. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 37. Atlanta.⬈#reference-2

Abusch, Tzvi. 2015b. The Magical Ceremony Maqlû: A Critical Edition. Ancient Magic and Divination 10. Leiden.⬈#reference-3

Abusch Tzvi/Schwemer, Daniel. 2011. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals, Volume One. Ancient Magic and Divination 8.1. Leiden.⬈#reference-4

Abusch Tzvi/Schwemer, Daniel. 2016. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals, Volume Two. Ancient Magic and Divination 8.2. Leiden.⬈#reference-5

Alster, Bendt. 1988. “Sumerian Literary Texts in the National Museum, Copenhagen.” Acta Sumerologica 10: 1–15.⬈#reference-6

Alster, Bendt. 1990. “Lugalbanda and the Early Epic Tradition in Mesopotamia.” In Abusch, Tzvi/Huehnergard, John/Steinkeller, Piotr (eds.). Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta. 59–72.⬈#reference-7

Attinger, Pascal. 2005. “A propos de AK <<faire>>.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 95: 46–64.⬈#reference-8

Berlin, Adele. 1979. Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna: A Sumerian Narrative Poem. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 2. Philadelphia.⬈#reference-9

Ceccarelli, Massimo. 2019. “Die ‘Alte Weise’ und die ‘weise Frau’ im alten Mesopotamien.” Fabula 60: 100–131.⬈#reference-10

Civil, Miguel. 1983. “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 43–66.⬈#reference-11

Civil, Miguel. 1987. “Feeding Dumuzi’s Sheep: The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration.” In Rochberg-Halton, Francesca (ed.). Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies presented to Erica Reiner. American Oriental Series 67. New Haven. 37–55.⬈#reference-12

Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1972–1975. “Ḫamazi.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4: 70–71.⬈#reference-13

Farber, Walter. 2014. Lamaštu: An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related Texts from the Second and First Millennia B.C. Mesopotamian Civilizations 17. Winona Lake.⬈#reference-14

Gadotti, Alhena. 2011. “Portraits of the Feminine in Sumerian Literature.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131: 195–206.⬈#reference-15

Geller, Markham. 2010. Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice. Oxford.⬈#reference-16

Komoróczy, Géza. 1975. “Zur Ätiologie der Schrifterfindung im Enmerkar-Epos.” Altorientalische Forschungen 3: 19–24.⬈#reference-17

Lackenbacher, Sylvie. 1971. “Note sur l’Ardat-Lilî.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 65: 119–154.⬈#reference-18

Majidzadeh, Yousef. 1976. “The Land of Aratta.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35: 105–113.⬈#reference-19

Marcuson, Hanna L. 2016. “Word of the Old Woman”: Studies in Female Ritual Practice in Hittite Anatolia. Dissertation. University of Chicago.⬈#reference-20

Michalowski, Piotr. 2010. “Masters of the Four Corners of the Heavens: Views of the Universe in Early Mesopotamian Writings.” In Raaflaub, Kurt A./Talbert, Richard (eds.). Geography and Ethnography. Oxford. 147–168.⬈#reference-21

Michel, Cécile. 2016. “Women Work, Men are Professionals in the Old Assyrian Archives.” In Lion, Brigitte/Michel, Cécile (eds.). The Role of Women in Work and Society in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 13. Berlin. 193–208.⬈#reference-22

Mittermayer, Catherine. 2009. Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: Ein ungleicher Wettstreit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 239. Fribourg, CH/Göttingen.⬈#reference-23

Naether, Franziska. 2019. “Ancient Expats? Wise Women and Witches in Egyptian Literary Sources.” In Berlejung, Angelika/Grohmann, Marianne (eds.). Foreign Women – Women in Foreign Lands. Studies on Foreignness and Gender in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East in the First Millennium BCE. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 35. Tübingen. 219–231.⬈#reference-24

Nissinen, Martti. 2017. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford.⬈#reference-25

Peterson, Jeremiah. 2015. “The Name of the Incantation Priest of Hamazu in Enmerker and Ensuhkešdana.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. No. 65.⬈#reference-26

Potts, Daniel T. 2004. “Exit Aratta: Southeastern Iran and the Land of Marhashi.” Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān: 1–11.⬈#reference-27

Roth, Martha T. 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta.⬈#reference-28

Rubio, Gonzalo. 2010. “Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62: 29–43.⬈#reference-29

Vanstiphout, Herman. 1989. “Enmerkar’s Invention of Writing Revisited.” In Behrens, Hermann/Loding, Darlene/Roth, Martha T. (eds.). DUMU-É-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. Philadelphia. 512–524.⬈#reference-30

Vanstiphout, Herman. 2003. Epics of the Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 20. Atlanta.⬈#reference-31

Walters, Stanley D. 1970. “The Sorceress and Her Apprentice: A Case Study of an Accusation.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23: 27–38.⬈#reference-32

Wiggermann, Frans A. M. 2000. “Lamashtu, Daughter of Anu: A Profile.” In Stol, M. (ed.). Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. Groningen. 217–252.⬈#reference-33

Notes

¹ I am grateful to Elizabeth Knott and Emily Cole for their comments on early drafts of this article, and thank Franziska Naether for her editorial comments. Similar to the witch, there is a large body of incantations concerned with combating Lamaštu and her ill effects, collected and published in Farber 2014. For an overview of the demon’s characteristics, see Farber 2014: 1–43 and Wiggermann 2000.⬈#footnote-1

² Her behavior is typically detailed in incantations designed to oppose her. For a fairly typical ardat lilî incantation, see Lackenbacher 1971.⬈#footnote-2

³ Concerning the body of anti-witchcraft incantations in general, see Abusch/Schwemer 2011: 1–24.⬈#footnote-3

⁴ Although the text’s narrative is positioned in an earlier period and connected to texts that are found in late third millennium copies, Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna is known only from copies dating to the Old Babylonian period, or early second millennium bce. On reading Ensuhkešdanna rather than Ensuhgiranna, see Rubio 2010: 29–34.⬈#footnote-4

⁵ References to a āšiptu, or female exorcist, are extremely limited and mostly refer to the goddess Gula (see entry “āšiptu” in CAD A/2). This is in contrast to Hittite sources, where the figure of the female ritual practitioner, or the “Old Woman,” is well documented (Marcuson 2016). In Mesopotamia, women do appear to hold ritual roles connected to divination, including the role of dream diviner, or šā'iltum (Michel 2016). In the Neo-Assyrian period, women are also well represented as prophetic oracles (Nissinen 2017: 297–325).⬈#footnote-5

⁶ To parallel this bilingual equivalence, we also see lu₂-uš₇-zu correspond with kaššāpu.⬈#footnote-6

⁷ Much like the word “magic,” the term “witch” is at times used imprecisely in the Mesopotamian context. Regardless, Sagburu stands apart from the more typical representations of a woman associated with supernatural abilities.⬈#footnote-7

⁸ Following Abusch/Schwemer 2016: no. 8.16, “Dough for the Arch-Witches.” The text is represented across five tablets, all from the Old Babylonian period (c. 2000–1600 bce). The Sumerian transliteration primarily follows Source C from the edition, a single-column tablet, possibly from Sippar. In this section of the incantation the four sources are fairly consistent, aside from inevitable variances expressed by one tablet written in syllabic Sumerian (Source A).⬈#footnote-8

⁹ There is more variance across the sources in these lines, most importantly concerning the verb for the casting of a spell upon the food (here as u₂-e uš₇ bi-in-du₁₁). Other tablets use the word inim, meaning “word, speech” in lieu of uš₇, which has the literal meaning of “poison, spittle.” The verb used for casting magic that also appears in this line (niĝ₂-ak bi-in-ak) is consistent across the texts, however, allowing for the predictable variance of the syllabic Sumerian writing of one of the tablets.⬈#footnote-9

¹⁰ This term for witchcraft or sorcery is represented by the Akkadian word kišpū, though other terms such as ruḫû and rusû are also seen.⬈#footnote-10

¹¹ There are a number of overviews of the witch in Mesopotamia; for her more demonic qualities and her opposition with the figure of the exorcist, see Abusch 1989: 31–39.⬈#footnote-11

¹² These four texts are hereafter referred to as the Aratta Cycle. Given their tightly connected narrative, the two texts concerning Lugalbanda are also titled Lugalbanda I and Lugalbanda II. For editions of the sequence of four texts, see Vanstiphout 2003.⬈#footnote-12

¹³ Various actual locations for the city of Aratta have been proposed in the scholarship, most of which focus on references to Aratta’s prominent position in the trade of lapis lazuli or its stated proximity to Anshan; see Majidzadeh 1976. These locations have been debated in more recent literature; see Potts 2004 and Michalowski 2010. The city only appears in the context of literary texts and is unattested in economic or administrative texts, which undercuts those who argue for Aratta being an actual location. Furthermore, it is clear that the Aratta found in the cycle of these four texts is intended to be fictional, divorced from any actual city, even if such a place were to have actually existed. Aratta is described in terms similar to Uruk: both cities speak Sumerian, worship the goddess Inanna, and maintain similar cultic rites. These similarities, if nothing else, mark Aratta as a literary construct in these texts.⬈#footnote-13

¹⁴ Alster 1990: 69.⬈#footnote-14

¹⁵ Mittermayer 2009. See also the introduction by F. Naether.⬈#footnote-15

¹⁶ Concerning the invention of writing that occurs in the text, see Vanstiphout 1989 and Komoróczy 1975.⬈#footnote-16

¹⁷ On the location of Ereš, see Civil 1983: 45.⬈#footnote-17

¹⁸ This and further passages of Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna follow, in regards to transliteration, the edition in Vanstiphout 2003.⬈#footnote-18

¹⁹ Unlike Aratta, Hamazu appears in a wider range of texts and was an actual, though currently unknown, location; see Edzard 1972–1975: 70.⬈#footnote-19

²⁰ As suggested by Peterson 2015, based upon the recent collation of relevant tablets.⬈#footnote-20

²¹ Geller 2010: 48.⬈#footnote-21

²² This command is repeated on line 183, directed toward the cow, and line 196, directed toward the goat. In each case, the effect is immediate.⬈#footnote-22

²³ Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna 206⬈#footnote-23

²⁴ The cowherd and shepherd are introduced in the text as the “cowherd and shepherd of Nisaba” (unud sipad ^dnisaba-ke₄-ne), and this connection to Nisaba is seen throughout the text (Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna 211).⬈#footnote-24

²⁵ Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna 224–226.⬈#footnote-25

²⁶ Sagburu’s name, consistently written as saĝ-bur-ru, is unusual in that it exists at all; Sagburu is one of only seven named women appearing within the corpus of Old Babylonian Sumerian literary texts (Gadotti 2011: 196).⬈#footnote-26

²⁷ Mittermayer (2009: 376), for example, translates this term as it appears in Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta as “alte, weise Frau.”; cf. Berlin 1979: 87–88. On the broad uses of this term, particularly as applied to different goddesses, see Ceccarelli (2019).⬈#footnote-27

²⁸ The early, pre-Old Babylonian, references to the “um-ma” appear primarily in administrative texts and often without much context. Early Dynastic attestations found at Girsu and Lagaš, for example, include references to the figure in administrative contexts.⬈#footnote-28

²⁹ See Alster 1988: 6. Note that this line is fragmentary and the reading of um-ma here is uncertain.⬈#footnote-29

³⁰ As seen on line 588 of the text: “When the old woman came to the mountain of the shining me” (um-ma kur me sikil-še₃ du-a-ni). This line immediately follows those referring to Inanna singing for her spouse, Dumuzi, and is followed by Inanna occupying the throne-dais with Enmerkar.⬈#footnote-30

³¹ Sagburu’s position as an elderly woman, furthermore, separates her from the dangerous aspects of both the ardat lilî and Lamaštu, who pose a threat because of their connection to the qualities of either a young and seductive woman or a woman of child-bearing age. Instead, the “um-ma saĝ-bur-ru” fits the archetype of the elderly witch or sorceress commonly seen in fairy tales, depicted as an old hag; see Berlin 1979: 88.⬈#footnote-31

³² The word for “fish spawn,” read here as agargara, or literally “disseminated semen,” can also be read as NUN, connected to the Akkadian word for fish, nūnu. I follow Vanstiphout 2003: 48, no. 37 on the reading of this sign.⬈#footnote-32

³³ Transliteration following Vanstiphout 2003.⬈#footnote-33

³⁴ Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna 248: maš-maš-e igi-ni ba-ku₁₀-ku₁₀ dim₂-ma-ni ba-suh₃⬈#footnote-34

³⁵ Transliteration following Vanstiphout 2003.⬈#footnote-35

³⁶ Although “ak” most often indicates “to do/make,” it has a wide range of potential functions. See Attinger 2005.⬈#footnote-36

³⁷ Enmerkar and Ensuhkešdanna 259.⬈#footnote-37

³⁸ Transliteration following Vanstiphout 2003.⬈#footnote-38

³⁹ Despite the prevalence of the witch in incantation literature, witchcraft accusations are few and far between, with only one reference to witchcraft in a documented legal case, preserved in a series of Old Babylonian letters concerning a property dispute, with the accusation of witchcraft refer to as an ancillary and unconnected charge. See Walters 1970: 29–30.⬈#footnote-39

⁴⁰ The law concerning witchcraft accusations is the second law in the text, following the legal code’s introductory passage. Specifically, it describes an instance where the accusation of witchcraft is unsubstantiated. Should the accused fail the River Ordeal, the accuser may claim the condemned’s entire estate; but should the accused survive the River Ordeal, and thus be declared innocent, the accuser’s estate is forfeit. See Roth 1997: 81.⬈#footnote-40

⁴¹ On the witch as inherently demonic, see Abusch 1989. See also the contributions of Edward Love and Rita Lucarelli in this volume for the Egyptian sources.⬈#footnote-41

⁴² For a basic overview of Maqlû (literally “Burning”), including the structure of the ritual and its respective sections, see Abusch 2015a: 1–44; the text as a whole is edited in Abusch 2015b.⬈#footnote-42

⁴³ Abusch 2015b: Tablet IV, 123–136. The witch is also described as an agugillat and a naršindat, both terms for witches that are poorly attested, and is additionally described as a snake-charmer (mušlaḫḫat), an ecstatic (eššebâti), and a metal-worker (qurqurrati), before finally describing her as native and belonging to the city. Thus, of the thirteen lines which describe the witch, five are fully dedicated to her foreign nature, and another five are devoted to her magical attributes.⬈#footnote-43

⁴⁴ On the witch as a foreign figure in Egyptian sources, see Naether 2019.⬈#footnote-44

⁴⁵ Clear connections between lexical and literary texts, for example, are easily seen (cf. Civil 1987).⬈#footnote-45