|
Post by madness on Jul 28, 2008 5:57:37 GMT -5
whether this transfer may have begun earlier in the Semitic Mesopotamian contexthmm well may I point out that Lilitu makes an interesting appearance at the end of the god list AN: Anu ša amēli153 | d[ ] | [d]Dim3.me | la-maš-tu | 154 | [d ] | [dDim3.me].a | la-ba-ṣu | 155 | [d ] | [dDim3.me].LAGAB | ah-ha-zu | 156 | [d]Du3.tab | dDu3.tab | bi-bi-tu | 157 | d"GI | dDim3.me.gi6 | li-li-tu |
Looking at the PSD entry for gi6 it appears to mean "night," so here Lilitu is identified as a night demon, and one that belongs to the Dimme/Lamaštu circle of demons as the name suggests. Litke states that on line 157 "the dittos probably indicate that dGI is an ideogram for dDu 3.tab." Now I wonder what dutab means.. ( The CAD entry for bibitu cites the god list but transliterates differently: [ ddi]m.tab = ddim 3.tab = bi-bi-tu )
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 28, 2008 11:25:39 GMT -5
WOW! Madness you are infinitely astute! Go to school dammit, and get your degree (itd be easy.) This observation not only means that yes Lilitu was definitly identifed with Lamashtu as has been somewhat demonstrated, but it means that the semantic transfer occured yes in Mesopotamian times. That is to say, we know that the Hebrew (semitic) word for 'night' is similar to the Sumerian word for wind lil2 - and we know that the Hebrews in their literature confused the two and made lilith a sort of night demon. We know also that the Mesopotamian semitic word for night (related to the Hebrew word) *also* is like the Sumerian lil2. With this post its estalbished that the confusion occured already in Mesopotamian contexts, and continued in the Hebrew. Good work. ;]
|
|
|
Post by xuchilpaba on Jul 28, 2008 17:38:05 GMT -5
WOW. I haven't came across that in my books. I'm surprised no scholar has been able to figure that out...
|
|
|
Post by xuchilpaba on May 25, 2010 15:55:33 GMT -5
I've read about gallu demons being bloodsuckers, but my knowledge on them is limited.
So I am gathering that Lilitu is a spirit(s) that branched off of the Inanna/Ishtar myth and absorbed the Lamashtu one, in Babylonian it was clear that Lilitu and Inanna were separate, and then later she became her own thing in Jewish lore. Her origins are so confusing that I begin to think the clear picture of her myth wasn't developed until after the Hebrews left Mesopotamia.
|
|
|
Post by lilitudemon on May 10, 2011 8:14:02 GMT -5
About vampires. The two characteristics of being a vampire is to be undead human and to suck blood, correct? (The other defining characteristics are debatable.)
What makes these demons/spirits vampires? Should we define vampire differently with Mesopotamia according to context even though no word exists for it amongst them?
|
|
|
Post by madness on Jun 24, 2011 1:44:24 GMT -5
To answer two of your above queries, we would, as always, need to look at the available evidence.
There is a text, already referenced by us4-he2-gal2 in this thread in #1, that is of interest. I am not sure if it was ever followed up, but I will provide it here as Geller has since then given us the full text.
Utukkū Lemnūtu tablet 5
124. Weakening both heaven and earth, the spirit weakens lands, 125. the demon, whose arms are lofty, weakens lands, 126. the one whose arms are lofty and his gait is lofty. 127. The Sheriff-demon is a goring ox, a great ghost, 128. a ghost who always climbs over all the houses. 129. The Sheriff-demons, the Seven of whom have no shame, 130. know not how to act kindly. 131. They ground down the land like flour, 132. and know not how to spare (anyone), 133. raging against people, 134. eating flesh, causing blood to flow, (then) drinking from the veins. 135. At this time they are the very images of the gods 136. in the house of the Holy Mound where the Ewe and Wheat abound - 137. the Sheriff-demons are filled with malevolence, 138. they do not cease consuming blood. 139. Adjure them with the oath, so that they never return to the nook and corner. 140. They have been adjured by heaven and they have been adjured by earth.
141. It is an Udug-hul incantation.
Geller's translations are: Of 124-125, "spirit" and "demon" are from dalad/šēdu. Of 127-128, "ghost" is from gu4/etemmu. Of 127, 129, 137, "Sheriff-demon" is from gal5-la2/gallû. Of 129, "Seven" is from imin/sibitti.
So, what we have here is the gallû demon, who is at the same time identified with the šēdu (spirit demon), the etemmu (ghost), and the notorious seven. In this capacity, gallû is the one who drinks from the veins of unfortunate people.
Why is this demon described as the image of the gods, located in that sacred primordial mound (here deified as ddu6-ku3-ga)? The mound became associated or identified with the Netherworld, but something interesting is implied here which I cannot yet quite grasp. This will need further investigation.
If we were to derive a definition of "vampire" to fit this scene, we would have to give it characteristics that include: - is a corrupted authority figure (following Geller's explanation of the "Sheriff-demon" gal5-la2 on p. xiii). - is a non-material entity, i.e. a ghost/demon - is of great stature, having great power, able to weaken all cosmic regions - kills indiscriminately, and consumes the flesh and blood of those it kills - has the image of the gods, is associated with the holy domain of the gods, yet is evil
|
|
asakku
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 51
|
Post by asakku on Jun 25, 2011 10:19:49 GMT -5
Are the lilitu demons a "big deal" in mesopotamian spirituality? Are there any textes in cuneiform that describes Lilitu as might or relevant to their practices?
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 2, 2011 18:05:39 GMT -5
Thank you madness for the updated translation, one I'm sure is quite superior to those we've seen before.
Asakku: Do to your continued interest on the subject of Mesopotamian religion and it's notions of chaos, it's respect or lack of respect to these entities, I plan to begin a new project here about this. Perhaps this is partly inspired by the fact that the only book I know of to mention enenuru dwells on this, probably in a largely incorrect way. Will mention this goal in the upcoming group email.
|
|
asakku
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 51
|
Post by asakku on Jul 9, 2011 9:07:31 GMT -5
Interresting group Mail, thank you Bill! I'am curious about it, if the discussion about Chaos deitys will arouse again.
I'am really want to know, if the Mesopotamian Religion was a dual religion. It doesn't seem so to me.
|
|
|
Post by lilitudemon on Jul 19, 2011 15:26:13 GMT -5
From what I have gathered with Mesopotamian demons they are usually made up of both malevolent and benevolent characteristics but there are no benevolent ones I've ever seen for either Lamashtu nor Lilitu. Archaeological evidence indicates they were avoided. Specifically Lamashtu whom was also considered to be a goddess.
Some incantation texts describe her as 'seven witches', can anyone contribute to this btw? I can't figure out if their is literal or figurative.
|
|
|
Post by theblindinglight on Aug 14, 2011 18:44:39 GMT -5
This is my first real post. exciting. It is my (educated) opinion that the 'Satyr' and 'Lilith' mentioned in Isaiah 34 are in fact wild animals rather than deities (to the mind of the Hebrew writer). I came to this conclusion after reading the D.D.D. and doing some analysis of the original Hebrew. If the Satyr had been seen as a mythological being, this would be quite strange indeed, as this creature was to be slaughtered as a sin offering (see Leviticus 4:24, 16:9, 16:18, 16:20-22... there are many other instances as well). The context of Isaiah 34 is the destruction of peoples (and some animals?) who are against Zion, and mentions wild animals that will dwell in the desolated land. Most of these animals are clearly not mythological, while some (unicorn, dragon, satyr, lilith) could possibly be seen as such. However, because this is somewhat of a running list of wild animals, it seems strange for spiritual (invisible) or demonic beings to be included alongside normal animals, including the hairy breed of goat (often used for burnt offerings) denoted by the word 'satyr.' Of course, the demythologization of frightening beasts would occur over time, as more land was explored, et cetera. On the topic of Vampires, I might refer you to something written in the entry from the D.D.D.: "...The Arabic noun awleq does occur meaning 'leech' or the like, but not specifically a demon. On the other hand, the second Phoenician amulet from Arslan Tash contains an incantation against a demon which is most probably depicted on the plaque. According to the inscription on the plaque the demon is a personified 'Blood-sucker', lhst lmzh 'Incantation against the Blood-sucker'. The Phoenician mzh might be compared with Hebr mzy r'b, 'the Suckers of Hunger' (Deut 32:24). Though the Phoenician demon is not identical with the Ar 'awleq, the incantation makes clear that insects could be seen as demons... The proverbial expression of Prov 30:15 reads (in MT): 'The 'aluqa has two daughters (who say) 'Give, give!'' The common Semitic meaning, 'leech', would suit the context. Since the sayings in Proverbs often feature insects and other humble creatures (cf. the ants, locusts, and other animals in Proverbs 30), it may be unwise to posit here the unique occurence of 'demon, vampire', based on an inner-Arabic semantic development..." --p. 887 of Dictionary of Deities and Demons: Second Edition (ed. van der Toorn et al.). Leiden: Eerdmans, 1999.-- I wonder to what extent insects might have been seen as demons by the Sumerians.
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Aug 15, 2011 3:20:17 GMT -5
Carlos Castaneda who investigated the native Mesoamerican traditions and who gave up the anthropology totally dedicating himself to the shamanic experience wrote about his encounter with the guardian of the netherworld which came out to be a common mosquito but while being in an altered state of mind he perceived it as a giant monstrous mosquito - he was even not able to identify it as a mosquito during his experience, so the guardian prevented him from entering the netherworld.
The shamanic experience shows that the magical concepts of certain entities are not a question of cultural beliefs but of the ability to change one's focus of perception, so the common insects may turn into demonic monsters and their bites may prove fatal during such an experience. So for the doctor the man has died by alergic shock but for the medicine man or the shaman the man has been killed by the guardian.
To all interested in the Mesopotamian magic as well as in any other ancient culture I do recommend some research in the shamanism. The shamanism precedes all the civilized cultures and the shamanic concepts all over the world share common elements independently of their geographical distances. Most of the magical concepts of the ancient civilizations are cultural elaborations of the pre-historic shamanic perceptive conceptualizations they called "seeing".
|
|
|
Post by lilitudemon on Dec 18, 2011 20:47:28 GMT -5
Carlos Castaneda who investigated the native Mesoamerican traditions and who gave up the anthropology totally dedicating himself to the shamanic experience wrote about his encounter with the guardian of the netherworld which came out to be a common mosquito but while being in an altered state of mind he perceived it as a giant monstrous mosquito - he was even not able to identify it as a mosquito during his experience, so the guardian prevented him from entering the netherworld. The shamanic experience shows that the magical concepts of certain entities are not a question of cultural beliefs but of the ability to change one's focus of perception, so the common insects may turn into demonic monsters and their bites may prove fatal during such an experience. So for the doctor the man has died by alergic shock but for the medicine man or the shaman the man has been killed by the guardian. To all interested in the Mesopotamian magic as well as in any other ancient culture I do recommend some research in the shamanism. The shamanism precedes all the civilized cultures and the shamanic concepts all over the world share common elements independently of their geographical distances. Most of the magical concepts of the ancient civilizations are cultural elaborations of the pre-historic shamanic perceptive conceptualizations they called "seeing". Carlos Castaneda is a New Age plastic Shaman. I highly suggest reading the Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda. Any person who is interested in these sort of practices should use caution since the word Shaman was about practices that originated in Siberia. It has thus become an academic term, however, Native Americans and the like do not use the term shaman. It has been absent in all my academic books concerning Mesoamerica and is not used in reference to Aztec or Toltec, (etc) practices. I also don't recall the term ever being used in Mesopotamian academia either. On topic. I did a video covering Lilith/Lilitu history with sources: It was one of the first times I used Windows Movie Maker, so the editing is not that GREAT. It goes a tad into Inanna too. I guess what I should have explained was that Lilitu =/= Lilith. Rather the lilitu myth is a prototype of the Jewish Lilith. It seems older scholarship, such as Kramer, wanted this figure(s) to be Lilith, even though it was not. I should have been a lot clearer about that and I may make a video to fix that. I also should have added there are a few that believe the Burney relief is fake. (And yes, since this video was made, my editing has gotten better.)
|
|
|
Post by madness on Apr 24, 2012 5:21:38 GMT -5
Question for discussion:
Does forcefully taking the blood from one individual, for creative purposes, count as a vampiric act?
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 24, 2012 12:43:42 GMT -5
To Lilitudemon (if she ever appear in enenuru):
I haven't noticed your posting till now. Yes, on an academic point of view you're quite right in respect to the Siberian origin of the term 'shaman' I used incorrectly in respect to Castaneda's magical paradigm. However, I used the term 'shamanism' in the most general sense to envelop a certain universal magical paradigm underlying all the prehistoric cultures independently of their ethnic and geographic divergences. A genuine practitioner could understand what I've meant. In fact Castaneda used the term 'sorcery' to describe his paradigm and the term 'shamanism' is a later editing to make his last books more 'political correct' and thus more sellable. Everyone has the right of one's own opinion but the assertion "Carlos Castaneda is a New Age plastic Shaman" reveals a total lack of practical understanding of Castaneda's ideas. There is almost no occult path which isn't profaned by the new-agers but it isn't my problem.
To Madness:
Do you mean, for example, a forceful human sacrifice to assure an abundant harvest?
|
|
|
Post by madness on Apr 24, 2012 19:14:58 GMT -5
I mean the actual removal of blood, which is then physically used for other purposes.
In your example, mere sacrifice is not what I mean. The blood would have to be taken from the human, and then inserted into the ground with the expectation that the blood itself will transform into crops (or at least help crops grow somehow).
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 25, 2012 1:39:58 GMT -5
There is no non-actual removal of blood, Madness. But for me the vampirism in the 'classic' sense of the word is particularly connected with the so called undead, post mortem activity. I'm from a region where the local folklore is worth investigating it in this respect and there are scholars who have done some interesting academic research, but their studies aren't translated in English. Otherwise there are many occult activities which use blood - more often voluntary than forcefully but they are all practised by living human beings and could be referred to vampirism only in some figurative sense.
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 26, 2012 1:05:00 GMT -5
A little explication concerning the above example of blood sacrifice to assure a harvest. It has never been expected that the blood itself will transform into crops. The agricultural (or any) work should be done anyway while the energy of blood is to enhance the process of growing and assure a divine blessing and protection over the desired outcome.
|
|
|
Post by madness on Apr 26, 2012 21:53:16 GMT -5
Oh yes it seems that the use of blood is a general activity of which vampirism is only one aspect.
Bill, you began the thread by separating vampirism from blood sacrifice, though looking through McCarthy's article I'm not sure how this distinction is supported. Has your opinion on this matter changed since that time?
|
|
|
Post by enkur on Apr 27, 2012 11:46:24 GMT -5
Madness, the distinction is that while the blood sacrifice is a part of ritual/magic activity conducted by living human beings with the purpose of obtaining goods from the gods, the vampirism is a predatory activity, a way of feeding of certain post-human, undead beings who have returned from the netherworld and prey on the living. At least this is the case in my native folklore as well as otherwhere as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Tiamat4Lilith on Aug 24, 2012 21:16:01 GMT -5
Just a Quick Question really in relation to Lamashtu, is the Labartu Demon mearly another representation of her in later babylonian periods, or a completely different being? as ive heard they are interelated.
|
|
af
dubsartur (junior scribe)
Posts: 22
|
Post by af on Aug 26, 2012 10:38:43 GMT -5
As I know, Labartu is the outdated variant of reading the name Lamashtu
|
|
|
Post by Tiamat4Lilith on Aug 29, 2012 20:31:41 GMT -5
Oh ok thanks for the info
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Sept 7, 2012 9:38:13 GMT -5
Tiamat4Lilith:
This is one of those problems which can be frustrating to resolve. The issue is that when an early reading of a name turns out to be somewhat wrong, as Assyriology evolves and becomes more sophisticated a new reading will be proposed and all of the sudden everyone is reading it that way; you end up with records of two different readings and what may appear to be two different demons in the Assyriological record.
However the first defense against confusion here is the date of published materials. If you are browsing a volume from before 1930, and there is a demon you haven't heard of in more recent dialogue, it's almost certainly an outdated reading of something. It follows that websites that cannot or do not cite their sources but refer to these names are useless for this reason (among others).
It's frustrating that modern Assyriological literature doesn't always list outdated readings of a demon name when dealing with a demon - however sometimes it does. Referring to the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, the closest thing to an Assyriological encyclopedia, when looking up Labartu the reader is referred to the entry Lamaštu instead. Also, after a bit of googling, I noticed an article by Arthur Ungur in ZA 35 (1925) entitled "Labartu oder Lamaštu?" - I am guessing that this is the article which changed the reading of the name for the field.. So Labartu has been an outdated reading for some 87 years.
|
|
|
Post by madness on Mar 26, 2013 8:35:53 GMT -5
Concerning Lilitu in AN: Anu ša amēli (#30 above)
Indeed, Wiggermann (Lamaštu, Daughter of Anu. A Profile) interprets dDim3-me-gi6 as "Lamaštu of the night" and states that: "the equation is based on a popular etymology, which derives Lilîtu from Semitic *lyl, "night", instead of from Sumerian líl, "wind, spirit, spectre", the true etymon."
|
|
|
Post by Tiamat4Lilith on Mar 30, 2013 20:26:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Bill! Sorry for the late reply
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on May 1, 2015 15:25:14 GMT -5
Kamad - the Sumerian Pronunciation of the Demoness Lamashtu?
I recently attended a conference on Mesopotamian Magic in Würzburg, Germany. The conference, on the topic of Sources of Evil in Mesopotamian Incantation literature (see here) included a talk by Andrew George on the topic of the incantation texts in the Schøyen Collection. I have long been interested in these texts as they add significantly to the body of known Early Dynastic incantation texts (but more on that later). George made a new proposal for the reading of Lamashtu's Sumerian name. For a long time scholars have been unsure on whether the demoness name was simply spoken "Dim-me" as the signs used to right the name, or if some other lost pronunciation lay beneath. George is now arguing that the Sumerian pronunciation was in fact Kamad and this is based primarily on Schøyen collection lexical evidence, specifically that published by Civil 2010. He states that the pronunciation dDIM3.ME emerges in the lexical text Ea VII 84-89 (edited Civil 2010:10, l. 85) in the Schoyen collection. I believe that line 86 of this lexical lists gives the Sumerian reading on the left, followed by the sign used to write the name (DIM3) and then by the Akkadian reading on the right: ka-ma-ad - DIM3 - la-m[a-aš-tum] The reading Lamaštu is quite heavily restored by Civil. Still, as George argues, this restoration, and implication that Kamad is the Sumerian pronunciation of the demon Lamaštu, would allow for an understanding of several occurrences of this term in texts where it was previously not understood. That is to say, scholars have seen phonetic spellings of Kamad in a handful of texts over the years, but it has never been clear who or what this was (until the lexical text mentioned above, according to George). He gives several possible examples of these occurrences, one being from a Middle Assyrian copy of a Sumerian incantation (published in Lambert 1965: 295 l.13): ka-ma-ad-ru ḫe-me2-en ka-ma-ad ḫe-me-en : “be you a kamadru, be you a kamad”
|
|