A Ugaritic Incantation against Snakebite (KTU 1.178 / RS 92.2014)
Introduction
Later today, in my Advanced Ugaritic seminar, I will present and lead a discussion on KTU 1.178 (= RS 92.2014), a Ugaritic incantation against snakebite, apparently written for (and/or by) Urtēnu (ll. 14-15). Here is an overview of the text followed by its vocalization and translation.
The funny thing about studying with Ted Lewis is that even though I think I know what the text is about before going into class, I always walk away realizing how little I actually know about the text (and about Ugaritology, Near Eastern Studies, and indeed life in general!). So take what follows with a grain of salt, and I may or may not update the post with some further insights in the future, especially to correct any inaccuracies.
Overview
Archaeological Context: The Urtenu Archive was an accidental discovery when, in 1970-1971, debris was removed from a modern military installation on the SW corner of Tell Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), uncovering the first of many cuneiform tablets (RS 32.204). Excavations since 1973 have brought to light the second largest archive hitherto discovered at Ugarit (the largest being the Palace archive).
Chantier Sud Centre – Maison d’Urtēnu – S. Lackenbacher, F. Malbran-Labat, Lettres en Akkadien de la ‘Maison d’Urtēnu. Fouilles de 1999’ (RSO XXIII), Leuven/Paris/Bristol 2016, p. 244. Reproduced (and taken from) Del Olmo Lete 2018, p. 63.
Historical Context: Urtenu was a scribe and ṯāʿiyu-official, but not a rb khnm ‘chief of the priests’. He was apparently an important member of the Ugaritic court evidenced by the fact that he received a letter (KTU 2.88/RS 94.2406; COS 3.45R) from the queen communicating her short-term itinerary (this double letter also included a letter from Ilimilku the scribe to Urtenu).
Urtenu’s Archive: The texts of Urtenu’s archive were published in a number of studies (Schaeffer 1978b; Bordreuil et al., 1991. Bordreuil, Malbran-Labat 1995; Arnaud 2001; 2007; Bordreuil, Pardee, Hawley 2012) and a catalogue of contents of Ugaritic texts from the 1973-1996 campaigns is available in Borderuil and Pardee 1999-2000 (for the syllabic texts, see Malbran-Labat 2008). As of Del Olmo Lete’s (2018) recent summary, the archive amounts to some 454 texts: 118 in alphabetic cuneiform (Ugaritic) and 336 in syllabic cuneiform (Akkadian). The distribution of alphabetic texts includes mostly economic texts and letters, but at least 3 literary and religious texts are known. Bordreuil (2013) makes a distinction between the texts that concern the public domain (le domaine public) and private domain (le domaine privé), RS 92.2014 being the best and parade example of the latter–one of Urtenu’s personal/private texts. Ultimately, as Del Olmo Lete (2018: p. 62) says, “Urtēnu’s personality emerges from his archive as the great factotum of the state and shows to what extent the management of the Kingdom of Ugarit was in the hands of scribes.”
Tablet Materiality: The size of the tablet is 51 mm in height, 65 mm long, and 18 mm wide/thick (or 2 x 2.5 x 0.7 inches, respectively). The small tablet was able to fit within the palm of the hand and could be carried on Urtenu’s person during his travels (see conclusion below).
Structure: Del Olmo Lete (2012; 2014) divides the text as follows: introductory remark on the technique to be applied (1-3a); performance formula (3b-8a); incantation formula (8b-11); closing incantation (12-13); colophon (14).
Overall function: Del Olmo Lete (2018): Rather than a magic text provided by the magician priest, the presence of nine more syllabic texts of magical-medical conjuration and omen praxis from the archive suggests that Urtēnu acted as a magician in these specialized techniques. (For my take, see conclusion below.)
Key interpretive issues: Hermeneutically, the key interpretive issues in this text include the following:
- the identity and function of the l ydʿ in line 1
- the word ủzb in line 1
- the word ʾmrmrn in line 2
- the verb tqnn in line 5, 7
- the identification of the dbbm (& kšpm) in lines 9, 13
- the word ghrt in line 11
History of Scholarship: Passing references were made about the text in the 1990s (by Caquot, Briquel-Chatonnet, Bordreuil and Pardee, Malbran-Malbrat, and Watson), but the first English translation appeared in Pardee 1997. A preliminary edition appeared in Pardee 2000 (RSO XII, Les Textes Rituels, #73, pp. 829-833). The editio princeps is Bordreuil and Pardee 2001 (RSO XIV, Études ougaritiques 1: Travaux 1985-1995, #52, pp. 387-391). Technical studies appeared in Ford 2001; Hawley 2004; and Avishur 2009; as well as new editions with philological commentary in Deitrich and Loretz 2009; Del Olmo Lete 2012; 2014. The text has also been used/cited in the context of other studies, specifically on the use of ghrt and its relation to BH גהר used in 1 Kgs 18:42; 2 Kgs 4:34 (e.g. Richelle 2017; Richey 2019).
KTU 1.178 / RS 92.2014
Text
Vocalization
I do not provide here my extensive philological commentary or any justifications for vocalizations, as the technical aspects of the Ugaritic grammar go beyond the purpose of this blog post.
Translation
My translation:
The one who does not know calls out to you: hyssop! But I call out to you: “I will embitter it (with) a holy tree (i.e., tamarisk)![1]
So, may the viper not rise up against you; may the scorpion not curl (its tail) beneath you.”
The viper will certainly not rise up against you! The scorpion will certainly not curl (its tail) beneath you!
“Indeed, may the demons of the sorcerers not proclaim an evil word, the word of a mortal (or: of mortality). Though their mouth and their lips thunder, may it (=the word) pour out like the water of the earth, O sorcerers, O demons.”
For Urtenu, for his body, for his limbs.
[1] Del Olmo Lete 2014: “the expression ʕṣ qdš probably reflects Akk. iṣu qudduši, said of the tamarisk” (p. 179). If tamarisk is the correct interpretation, cp. KTU 1.100, e.g. ln. 65: ‘ar‘aru-ma yana‘‘irannaha ‘with a tamarisk-tree he expels it (i.e., the venom).’
The perceptive reader will note that I vocalize ln. 9 as dābibūma kaššāpūma but translate “the demons of the sorcerers” which should have kšpm in the genitive /kaššāpīma/. In fact, the syntactic relationship of these words is unclear and could be understood in apposition (cp. ln. 13 which reverses the terms; see also the translation of Bordreuil and Pardee 2009). I prefer the idea of the “demons of the sorcerers”, but contextually it makes more sense that the sorcerers (not the demons) are proclaiming the evil word.
Del Olmo Lete 2014:
He who does not know will say to you: hyssop (is the suitable instrument).
But I will say to you (and) corroborate it: holy tree.
And (so) upon you will you not allow the snake to jump, (and [so] upon you the snake will not jump)
nor beneath you will you allow the scorpion to coil! (nor beneath you will the scorpion coil!)
Indeed you will not allow the snake to jump upon you, (Indeed the snake will not jump upon you)
in no way will you allow the scorpion beneath you to coil!
In the same way, do not let the foul-mouthed sorcerers proclaim
the word(s) of the wicked, the word(s) of people,
the hullabaloo of their mouths and their lips.
May (they) be poured out like water on the earth
the fouled-mouthed/insidious sorcerers!
(Incantation) for ’Urtēnu, for his body (and) for his complexion/members.
Pardee 2000 & Bordreuil and Pardee 2009:
Conclusion
Even though some aspects of the text continue to be debated, it seems clear enough that the genre of the text belongs in some way to the broad literary tradition of ancient Near Eastern magic and incantation literature. If this is an incantation, which seems to be the best interpretation proffered so far, then the spell addresses the bite/sting of the viper (bṯn) and scorpion (ʿqrb) (and the demons/sorcerers responsible). More fundamentally, if my translation is correct (based on the interpretation of some prefix conjugation forms as volitives in quotes/oral performance), then the tablet itself may have also been apotropaic, i.e., preventative. This provides a different nuance than understanding it in purely “medical” terms, i.e., as a response to snakebite/scorpion sting (although it could, in theory, still function in medical operation as well). The way I see it, Urtenu thought that the act of carrying the tablet with its spells textualized on it would have kept him safe from vipers and scorpions, indeed, from the evil word of the sorcerous demons (or demonic sorcerers) themselves. Nevertheless, he could still use the spells written on it should he need to perform it as a medical incantation for himself or someone else.
About The Author
Gilgameš and Agga (Lines 1-17) 
Law Code of Lipit-Ištar (Laws 8-18; CBS8284) 
Gudea Cylinder A xviii 1-28 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A iii 1-29 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A ii 1-29 (E3/1.1.7.CylA) 
Gudea Cylinder A i 1-29 (RIME E3/1.1.7.CylA)