Taboo in Mesopotamia

[us4-he2-gal2]

**Refined July 23 **


[At the time of this writing] I dont have a sense yet for taboo but I feel it might carry a significant cultural or religious lesson. The Sumerian word for taboo appears to be [niĝ2-gig] (nig2-gig).
An example is the line I quoted elsewhere in regards necromancy, that is from the proverb:

(etcsl text c.6.1.03, proverb 3.168)
ce muc5 nij2-gig lu2-gidim-ma-ka
"The muš barley is reserved for the necromancer."

Obviously the topic would need to be studied in order to explain how that translation is obtained..

potential sources:
Journals may have been
1. "Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos" by William H. Hallo, JQR 1985
2. M. J. Geller "Taboo in Mesopotamia: A Review article" JCS 1990 [reviews #4]
3. Geller also mentions an example of níĝ.gig as it relates to a magic circle used to repel a ghost on pg.132 Udug-hul.
4. K. Van der toorn "Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia"

[us4-he2-gal2]

**Refined July 23, I have systematically rendered niĝ2-gig with g circumflex though there seems to be variation on this elsewhere)**






In order to brooch this subject, Ive taken some notes on the below article. To give some idea of scale the article is 20 pages, my notes somewhere less then two. Further perspective to follow..

"Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos" by William H. Hallo 1985

As the author relates, he began his examinations of the subject at hand with a few lines from a school tablet from O.b. Nippur which reads:

"A judge who perverts justice,
a curse which falls on the righteous people,
a (first born) heir who drives the younger (son)
out of patrimony,
these are abominations of Ninurta."

He states that the structure of this epigram, common to Sumerian proverbs particularly, consist of "a group of sayings in syntactic and (more or less) semantic parallelism, followed by a concluding end-formula" and that among the proverbs thus structured, a subgroup (those categorized as taboos) typically ends with the punchline "it is an abomination of (this or that) deity' or (niĝ2-gig dingir-ra-ka) hence, a taboo." [note1].
Three other versions of the above text are extent, some substituting Utu in place of Ninurta, which prompts the author to reflect that "it is not particularly crucial which deity is invoked in the punchline." A few other examples of taboo from the Proverb Collections are::

"Adding property to property (literally, share of a inheritance)
is an abomination to Utu."

(On a historical note, Hallo mentions this sentiment as being featured in Urukagina's reforms, the ruler is supposed to have complained that "the house of the ruler was added to the field of the ruler, the house of his wife was added to the field of his wife, the house of his crown prince was added to the field of his crown-prince.. )

[Proverb Collection 3, no.170]
3. "To examine (?) a man taking a boat downstream
to...the foreheads
to touch the vulva-
these are abominations of Suen."

A variation [OECT 5:35 rev.15f] is
3a. "To examine a man taking a boat downstream
a man caulking a boat,
or a man drowning (?)-
is an abomination of Suen."

[Proverb Collection 3.9 Falkowitz]
4. "Pouring beer into an unclean well
no stamping when saying an incantation,
not keeping out(?) sand from a cold(?) nose
not shading...at noon-
it is a taboo against Utu"

Hallo's own translation of 4. varies significantly:

"To banquet without washing the hands
to spit without stamping (on the spittle)
to blow (literally cool) the nose without
returning (the mucus) to dust,
to use (literally do) the tongue at noon
without providing shade-
these are abominations of Utu."

In reflecting on this translation, the author comments that the above proverb can be understood to contain four example of "bad manners" associated with ordinary bodily functions, and gives a further example, Proverb collection 3.161 which has to do with the abomination of bringing to the mouth unwashed hands. Following a few addition examples of varying context Hallo comes to:




"But the most intriguing parallel to these abominations comes from outside the proverbs collections, indeed from outside the unilingual Sumerian literature altogether. Collection 3.168 and 169 are treated by Falkowitz as separate (albeit parallel) proverbs, and translated (respectively) by him as:

[9] "Bitter barley is taboo for the necromancer" ((lú)gidim).
amd
"Wheat flour is taboo for (his [i.e, the necromancer's]) god."

The same saying is found in only slightly variant form in the context of incantations [note 4], But a quick check of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary's (CAD) article on ikkibu (the Akkadian equivalent of Sumerian niĝ2-gig=taboo) reveals that this particular taboo also passed into a bilingual series called utuku limnuti, preserved verbatim (albeit in reverse order) in an unpublished Kuyunjik text (k 166) as follows:

[9a] segusu-flour is forbidden (as an offering) to ghosts,
wheat flour is forbidden (as an offering) to gods.

This suggests that in the millennium which separates the Sumerian proverbs of Old Babylonian date from the canonical collection of incantations against evil spirits, the emphases of taboos had shifted from a principal preoccupation with morals and manners, to at least an equal concern with cultic matters."




So, Although some instances of the expression came to involve a new sense, that of "sacred to the deity", Hallo relays that the original use of taboo can still be found, and continue to have the connotation "abominable to the deity, taboo" , yet in new contexts. Hallo provides an example of the function of taboo to prevent the transmission of secret lore (i.e in the case of divination).
"Such texts are typically subscribed:
The initated shall show (this text only) to (another) initiate. the uninitiate dis not to see (it). It is a taboo of (this or that) deity."


In later periods as well calendars would be developed (menologies/Hemerologies) which would list "the months and days on which all manner of activities should or should not be carried out.". One of the taboos [from Assur] on the 7th month (Tašritu) 7th day was: "He must not eat fish and leek, or a scorpion will sting him - it is a sin against Shulpa'e the lord of the table."
There are numerous other examples of taboo's for this day in Assur, vut Hallo single's this one out as particularly interesting - He reference's Alster's work on "Dumuzu's Dream' in order to reveal a parallel. Hallo states that the "description of demons in line 110-118 of Dumuzi's Dream includes the formulaic lines, "(They) taste not the bitter garlic, they eat no fish, they eat no leek," lines which were, according to Alster, "originally intended to describe cultically clean persons, for whom strong smelling foods were forbidden." Thus a cultic provision is in-directly revealed.

"Summing up the cuneiform evidence, it may be said in general that the divine distaste expressed in the genre of sayings seems, in Sumerian texts of the second millennium, to be reserved for infractions against ethical or behavioral norms, while in Akkadian texts of the 1st millennium it is extended as well to normally legitimate activities which happen to be conducted on an unacceptable day. In neither context is there any visible rationale for the invocation of a particular deity..... .. .. In the late examples, moreover, the whole concept of the "abomination of the deity" seems to weaken into a mere idion to express the idea of a sin against a given deity."



note1: Edmund Gordon reportedly refers to this this subgroup as "Proverb Collection 14". Also, Besides the word niĝ2-gig for taboo, ePSD would indicate there is also the Sumerian anzil and azag, corresponding Akkadian words are ikkibu, anzillu, asakku, kinkimmu and gipāru
note4: CAD I/J 44:34, OECT 5:19

[us4-he2-gal2]

**Refined July 23, I have systematically rendered niĝ2-gig with g circumflex though there seems to eb variation on this elsewhere)**

Referencing "Taboo in Mesopotamia: A review article" by M.J. Geller, JCS 1990

ePSD: D THING] (89x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. niĝ2-gig "that which is bad, forbidden; evil" Akk. ikkibu; lemnūtu
(the g appears to be rendered variously with or without circumflex [niĝ2-gig]/[nig2-gig]

This journal entry I found interesting for a few reasons, it demonstrated again that the word niĝ2-gig has not only a range of semantic uses in ancient times, but a range of interpretations in modern times.. also interesting are Gellers comments on taboo touching on Necromancy. So I have here some notes I took.
The article is actually Geller's review of van der Toorns "Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia." He comments that this is a rare work that manages new insights into both cultures. Geller focus's on van der Toorn's understanding of the Sumerian term niĝ2-gig, and explains that that author follows Hallo in relating níĝ-gig/ikkibu with the Hebrew to[c]ebah [sp] "abomination," this is "on the basis of a number of proverbs ending with níĝ-gig or níĝ-gig DN, to which Hallo refers to as Sumerian taboos. It is doubtful, however, whether "abomination" or "taboo" appropriately describe the types of behavior classified as níĝ-gig in proverbs literature."
By way of explanation Geller states that an abomination "implies something hated or rejected by the gods", níĝ-gig however may lack this context in its use, or may imply just the opposite "namely something "reserved" for a god, a meaning it shares with ikkibu."

Examples given that seem somewhat less then an abomination: About these and similar proverbs Geller notes: "these proverbs spanning the categories of ethics and etiquette are interpreted by van der Toorn as referring to "something incompatible with the character of the gods, provoking their anger and repulsion," which seems to be an unduly harsh assessment of such aphorisms."


1.
-šu nu luḫ-ḫa ka/kìri-e tùmu-da
níĝ-gig-ga-am
-To put an unclean hand to the
mouth/nose is a níĝ-gig

2
-lú ^gišmá-diri ga lú g^iš má-ru-ru-gú
níg-zuḫ di-dam níĝ-gig (d)suen-na-ke4
- For the man sailing downstream to call out "theft" to the one sailing upstream is a níĝ-gig to Suen.

3.
-mu min-šu-ši-mu-meš nam-lú-u18-lu
níĝ-gig-bi ḫi-a
-Twice sixty years is the limit (níĝ-gig) of mankind.

Example of níĝ-gig in which something is "reserved" for a god ("a meaning shared with ikkibu"), in contradiction with being repulsive to a god (abomination.)
(This proverb I believe can be found at etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.6.1.03, that is Proverbs collection 3, 3.168 and 3.169. Also in the above post Falkowitz' translation of the same is given, with the šemuš-flour being "taboo" and also above, Hallo has given a related composition, which translated, has the šemuš-flour being "forbidden". Gellers treatment of this is as follows however )

-še-muš5 níĝ-gig lú-gedim-ma-ka
zì-gig nìg-gig dingir-ra-na-ka
-The šemuš-flour is the "reserve" (níg-gig) of the necromancer,
and wheat is the "reserve" (níĝ-gig) of the god.

"The proverb reflects itself in Sumerian unilingual and bilingual incantations: [note 17]
1. ^zi še-muš5 níĝ-gig gedmin-ma ^zi
2. ^zi še-nu-ḫa níĝ-gig x x [...]
3. giš-nú-da-na-ke4 ù-me-ni-ḫur

Translation:
The šemus-flour, which is out-of-bounds (níĝ-gig) for a ghost, and wheat, which is the "reserve" (níĝ-gig) of a (personal) god, and the šenuḫa-barley ... [use to encircle] the bed.

note 17. CF. CT 44 34: 22-24; Forerunners to Udug-hul 789-90, Iraq 27 (1965) 165:50-55
The circle of flour is intended to repel the ghost, to prevent him from approaching the patient's bed; but the flour components of the magic circle are described as níĝ-gig both to the ghost and to the personal god, an unlikely contradiction if níĝ-gig is "abomination." The alternative idea of floor "forbidden" as an offering to a ghost or god correctly assumes that the particular ingredients of the magic circle are forbidden for any other purpose, but the same contradiction between flour "forbidden" both to ghost and god remains. These flours, however cannot be considered abhorant, since that would defeat one purpose of the magic circle, namely, to encourage the benevolent spirits to be present at the patients side, or by his bed. By the same logic, the Nimrud incantation that calls the same flour and barly, níg-gig to both ghost and god, to be employed to wipe down the victim, is hardly an appropriate substance to be considered an "abomination." A more likely meaning for níĝ-gig in this context is "reserved" for a ghost or god, set apart for a god or sacred purpose, thereby rendering the object so described unusable for any secular purpose, and hence off-limits."

So Geller gives a solution to what were particularly perplexing lines in earlier renderings. I now understand 3.168 to mean that the šemuš-flour is reserved for the necromancer for use with/against ghosts. This is of course in some harmony with the etcsl rendering "The muš barley is reserved for the necromancer." Geller's difference with Hallo here is in the interpretation of particular instances of níĝ-gig, but Hallo appears to have come across similiar understanding in terms of the semantics, as in his JQR 1985 article, he does refer to the meaning "sacred to the deity," similar to Gellers "reserve", although Hallo seems to make the case for this meaning evolving sometime later then the relevant proverb.

Some of this should be useful for the examination of Necromancy in Mesopotamia, and a line or two in Forerunners to Udug-hul, page 75.

[adante]

He reference's Alster's work on "Dumuzu's Dream' in order to reveal a parallel. Hallo states that the "description of demons in line 110-118 of Dumuzi's Dream includes the formulaic lines, "(They) taste not the bitter garlic, they eat no fish, they eat no leek," lines which were, according to Alster, "originally intended to describe cultically clean persons, for whom strong smelling foods were forbidden." Thus a cultic provision is in-directly revealed.

Cultic or simply ties in with the idea the Sumerian gods were fastidious about cleanliness? If you have an aversion to uncleanliness, then its not hard to assume you'd also not like any pungent odours.