Miglio - Study of Serpent Incantation KTU 1.82 1-7

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15692124-12341244

Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3048

Journal of Ancient Near

Eastern Religions

brill.com/jane

A Study of the Serpent Incantation KTU2 1.82: 17 and its Contributions to Ugaritic Mythology

and Religion

Adam E. MiglioAssistant Professor of Archaeology, Wheaton College

[email protected]

AbstractThis article treats KTU2 1.82: 17, an Ugaritic incantation. It deals, first, with matters of epigra-phy, philology, morpho-syntax and lexicography. Thereafter, it discusses the contributions of this incantation to understanding Ugaritic mythology and religion. In particular, it assesses the rela-tionship of KTU2 1.82: 17 to the Ugaritic Balu Cycle.

KeywordsKTU2 1.82, serpent incantation, Balu Cycle

Ancient Near Eastern incantation texts are well known from the world of Syro-Mesopotamia, having been preserved as artifacts of the cuneiform cul-ture that characterized this region for more than three millennia. These incan-tations were texts that, when spoken, were believed to bring about a desired religio-magical effect. From the Late Bronze Age city of Ugarit, in particular, incantations are attested in two general types. The first may be classified as historiolae. Historiolae were comprised of formal mythological texts typically narrated in the indicative mood and accompanied by a ritual prescription.1 The second form of incantation at Ugarit was simply a formula or spell with-out an accompanying mythological narrative that had a performative effect when uttered.2

1 See Seth Sanders, A Historiography of Demons: Preterit-Thema, Para-Myth, and Histo-riola in the Morphology of Genres, in Historiography in the Cuneiform World, eds T. Abusch, et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press) 2001: 42940.

2 This twofold distinction is made by Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Writings in the Ancient World 10. [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002]).

A. E. Miglio / Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3048 31

This article addresses one particular Ugaritic incantation found in the first seven lines of KTU2 1.82 that was intended to cure a snakebite. At least three other Ugaritic serpent incantations are known. Two of these can be classified as historiolae (KTU2 1.100 [RS 24.244] and KTU2 1.107 [RS 24.251]),3 whereas the third belongs to the simpler type of incantation (RS 92.2014). KTU2 1.82:17 adds another example of the latter type in which a formula or spell was believed to conjure religio-magical power. At the same time, KTU2 1.82: 17 is distinctive in that while it is not an historiola, it still shows strong connections with the mythological literature of Ugarit through its allusion to one of the great myths, the Balu Cycle.

Concerning KTU2 1.82, in general, Andr Caquot observed that, [l]a tablette KTU 1.82 dfie depuis longtemps la sagacit des dchiffreurs.4 As a result of its difficulty, this tablet has elicited relatively few lengthy studies since Charles Virolleaud first published the editio princeps in 1957.5 Focusing on the first seven lines of KTU2 1.82, then, the present essay begins with mat-ters of epigraphy, philology, morpho-syntax, and lexicography and thereafter discusses three ways in which KTU2 1.82: 17 contributes to our understand-ing of Ugaritic mythology and religion. First, KTU2 1.82: 17 can be shown to be a distinctive incantation in the Ugaritic corpus in that it shows an aware-ness of one of the great myths. This awareness in KTU2 1.82: 17 suggests that the incantation tradition and mythological literature at Ugarit were closely related, a conclusion that is buttressed by the parallel phenomenon in the Mesopotamian tradition, where incantations are also known to have alluded to mythological texts. Additionally, the structure of KTU2 1.82: 17 provides insight into the organization of the Balu Cycle, as it has been recon-structed by modern scholars. That is, allusions to the Balu Cycle in KTU2

3 It may also be that KTU 1.124 (=RS 24.272) is a historiola concerning a snakebite, see Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 171.

4 Andr Caquot, Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques: KTU 1.82, Studi Epi-grafici e Linguistici 5 (1988): 331.

5 The most recent is that of G. del Olmo Lete, KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation, AuOr (2011): 24565 and another is Charles Virolleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II (Paris: 1957), 37. The principle investigations over the past half-century are: 1) P.J. van Zijls discussion, which he published over a span of three years in The Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages (Translation and Discussion of Text 1001:12 (R 15.134: 12), JNWSL 2 [1972]: 7485; Translation and Discussion of Text 1001:35a, JNWSL 3 [1974]: 8593; Transla-tion and Discussion of Text 1001:5(b)7, JNWSL 4 [1975]: 7386.); 2) Johannes C. de Moor and Klaas Spronk, More on Demons in Ugarit, Ugarit-Forschungen 16 (1984): 237250, who provide a collation, normalized hand copy, and commentary; 3) Andr Caquots article Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques: KTU 1.82, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici. 5 (1988): 33143; 4) and most recently G. del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion according to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit [Bethesda: CDL Press, 1999], 37378.).

32 A. E. Miglio / Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013) 3048

1.82: 17 are consistent with the order of events as they have been recon-structed in tablets KTU2 1.31.6. And lastly, KTU2 1.82: 17 constrains the interpretation of the Balu Cycle. In particular, KTU2 1.82: 17 limits the number of the serpentine foes that Balu confronted in his battle with Yammu in KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845.

1. KTU2 1.82: 17 and the History of its Interpretation

KTU2 1.82 is a fragmentary tablet on which the opening seven lines of the obverse are best preserved. That these first seven lines contain a discrete unit is strongly suggested by a stroke impressed by the scribe just after line seven, which sets off these initial lines from those that follow. In fact, several such strokes, or score marks, seem to divide the tablet into different sections that may have contained various incantations.6 As concerns KTU2 1.82:17, inter-preters have offered two divergent hypotheses about the intent of this religio-magical text. De Moor and Spronk, on the one hand, have suggested that this incantation concerns a womans unhealthy menstruation. On the other, Del Olmo Lete has offered the provisional interpretation of these lines as an incan-tation concerning snakebites.7

De Moor and Spronks interpretation is heavily predicated on their restora-tion in the first half of line one, [lb]ty, which they take to be the lemma bittu, daughter. In fact, their restoration provides an interpretive matrix for the whole incantation. If correct, KTU2 1.82 would be the only incantation deal-ing with this topic from Ugarit. Thus Del Olmo Letes solution that KTU2 1.82: 17 is a serpent incantation is preferable. First, Del Olmo Letes analysis better takes into account the petition to the god Balu to seize serpents (batnma, line six). Second, Del Olmo Letes interpretation recognizes that the genre of serpent incantations is already well known from Ugarit (e.g. KTU2 1.100 [RS 24.244] and RS 1992.2014). Moreover, as will be shown in greater detail below, Del Olmo Letes hypothesis helps to explain numerous other epigraphic, philological, morpho-syntactic and lexical complexities in KTU2 1.82: 17.

6 This conclusion is confidently affirmed by Del Olmo Lete, who has noted that . . . [i]t is fairly clear that this [tablet] is a collection of incantations . . ., Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Reli-gion, 373. It is beyond the scope of this study, however, to address whether all of the incantations on the tablet are thematically related (del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 373) or not (De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons in Ugarit; Caquot, Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques).

7 Most recently in KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation.


2. Vocalization and Translation8

1 [yi]mhas . Balu [xx] t9y . Tunnana10 . wa yaggul . wa yanassik . A[tika]2 [xx]y . l arsi [i]dya . alata . l ahu . idya . alatu . nu layya3 [si]bit . Balu. hizza . Rapi . bin . kma . yri . kilyatahu .wa libbahu4 [tin?] . pku . bi gurri . tin . pka . bi halbi . k tagawwilni . innatku5 [wa k .] wa apatku . l taaiy. himma. tagarrimu . l Mti . baraqaku 6 [yiss]ahipu . an . arninu . qla . api . haww . batnma . uhud . balima7 [a] ttumu . prtl . l raihu . hmt . tmt .

1 May Balu strike [xx] Tunnanu, may he appear and thrust A[tika?] 2 [xx] to the earth. [Then], I will not feel the curse; then, I will no longer be under

the curse. 3 [Se]ize, O Balu, the arrow of Rapu. Know that he shoots at his kidney and his

heart. 4 [Lift] your voice among the mountains. Echo your cry in the cliffs, your teeth

chattering5 [and] your lips being unable to stop. (For) if you cast your bolts against Mtu, 6 [he wi]ll be overwhelmed. I will raise (my) voice! O apu, give life! / Seize the

snakes, O Balu! 7 I will put prtl (?) on his head, hmt . tmt

3. Commentary

Lines 12: 1) [yi]mhas . Balu [xx]ty . Tunnana . wa yaggul . wa yanassik . A[tika] 2) [xx]y . l arsi

The initial difficulty in the text is epigraphic and is the result of a chip in the tablets upper edge and on its face that obscures several signs in the first line.

8 I have provided a vocalization of the first seven lines of KTU2 1.82 as a heuristic practice in order to make explicit my understanding of the morphology and syntax. The particulars of my interpretation will be addressed in the commentary below.

9 From the photos it appears that the t is clear; part of a horizontal wedge is visible (see del Olmo Lete, KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation; Virolleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II ). Other possibilities that cannot be excluded are a or n. In terms of restorations, an important contribution of De Moor and Spronk is that they have drawn attention to the physical property of this artifact. They have noted that this tablet has not suffered extensive damage. This serves as a correction to Virolleauds assumption about the state of preservation when he initially pub-lished the tablet. De Moor and Spronk summarize accordingly: the parallelism in the widest part of the obverse of the tablet indicates the absence of a very small number of signs (De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons in Ugarit, 237). As a result the probable space for reconstruc-tion is certainly much more restricted than it had been considered prior to De Moor and Spronks collation.

10 See John Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Studies 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 18586.


In this initial lacuna, De Moor and Spronk read the signs as [l b]t and trans-lated [for] my [daughter]. Van Zijl suggested the restoration [ly], which, while sensible, is epigraphically impossible: the photo in PRU II clearly indi-cates the remnants of either an a, t or n.11 A certain restoration here is not presently possible; at the same time, that a beneficiary of this incantation is to be found in the lacuna in the middle of line one and again at the beginning of line two, as intuited by De Moor and Spronk, seems plausible.12

What is beyond doubt is that Tunnanu is the object of the verb [y]mhs and that this collocation facilitates an allusion to the mythological battle of Balu against Yammu found in KTU2 1.3 iii 3646. This observation is important, for it aids the analysis of the end of line one. At the end of this line, Virolleaud indicated that after the ayin the tablet was effaced and broken. In this break De Moor and Spronk have restored [dt] (menstruation), based on an Arabic cognate that is otherwise unattested in Ugaritic. This solution must be judged unlikely, in part because it is difficult to connect with the reference to Tun-nanu and the other mythological overtones from the Balu Cycle in this incan-tation. My proposed restoration at the end of this line, therefore, is A[tika].13 This suggestion is based upon three observations. First, the restoration fits in the remaining space on the tablet given the fact that several of the lines are written onto the edge (e.g. ll. 24, 6). Second, this restoration preserves the parallelism of this bi-cola. Third, the restoration Atika is congruent with the mention of Tunnanu in the previous colon, especially given the mention of both Tunnanu and Atika in KTU2 1.3 iii 3646 (esp. ll. 40, 44) as foes of Balu and Anat.14

If correct, the restoration of Atika in line one would serve as the direct object of the verb nsk. It might be objected that Atika is not a suitable object for the verb nsk, yet in Ugaritic this verb has a semantic range that allows for objects that are not liquids, as in Akkadian (nasku).15 In fact, the coupling of Atika with the verb nsk might conjure a familiar image in Northwest Semitic

11 See Planche, IV; also see del Olmo Lete, KTU.182: Another Miscellaneous Incantation.12 Del Olmo Lete has also proposed that this lacuna contains the location from which the

Tunnanu is driven, that is from the house [bb]t (KTU 1.82: Another Incantation, 246).13 After the acceptance of this article for publication, I encountered the same proposal offered

by del Olmo Lete, KTU 1.82: Another Incantation, 249.14 On the designation of Atiku as gl il, see, Mark S. Smith, Terms of Endearment: Dog

(klbt) and Calf (gl ) in KTU 1.3 III 4445, in Und Mose schrieb dieses Lieb auf . . ., Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift fr Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebenjahres mit Beitrgen von Freuden, Schlern und Kollegen, eds. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 71316.

15 Cf. de Moor and Spronk, 238; See CAD N/II nasku A p.16 mng 1c. Though this is unlike the cognate verb in Hebrew (Cf. Virolleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II, 3, where he trans-lates: versa une libation sur. . . .).


mythology: a watery foe being cast onto the dry land.16 This motif appears in KTU2 1.83, where a similar fate is recounted for Yammu: toward the desert shall you be scattered, Oh Yammu!17 And likewise, Psalm 74.14 describes YHWHs defeat of the sea creature Leviathan, saying: You, yourself, crushed the heads of Leviathan, and gave him as food to the people of the desert ( ).18

Line 2: [i]dya19 . alata . l ahu . idya . alatu . nu layyaThe linch-pins for interpreting line two are the noun alt and its accompany-ing verb ah. De Moor and Spronk, van Zijl, and del Olmo Lete have under-stood the noun alt to be cognate with Hebrew (oath, curse) and the related lexeme known from the Arslan Tash Inscription, whereas Caquot compared this word with Hebrew (support, pillar), explaining the -t as the feminine morpheme. Against Caquots proposal, it should be noted that one would expect Hebrew to be spelled il in Ugaritic (lu), not with a.20 Thus the correlation of this lemma with Hebrew (curse) by De Moor and Spronk, van Zijl, and del Olmo Lete is to be preferred.

The thorny issue of the verb ah cannot be disentangled from the identifi-cation of the noun alt. Caquot and De Moor and Spronk have taken the verb from a hollow root meaning to hasten, cognate with Hebrew , while del

16 That Atika is a watery foe is deduced from its attestation with Ariu and Tunnanu in KTU2 1.3 iii 4344, who dwelt in the sea (bym ar wtnn [KTU2 1.6 iv 51]). Thus in KTU2 1.82 Atika would be another serpentine water-creature portrayed as having been hurled to the dry land (i.e. arsu l.2) when defeated.

17 Line 11: pl . tbtn . yymm (in Pitard, The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.83, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57 (1998): 26180.

18 Also Ezekiel 32.25: You (i.e. Pharaoh) are like Tannim in the sea. . . . I will spread my net over you in the company of the many peoples, and they will pull you up in my net. I will cast you onto the land, onto the open field I will hurl you. I will make all the birds of the sky alight upon you, and with you I will sate all the beasts of the earth. I will cast your flesh on the moun-tains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. A later Egyptian source, the Metternich Stela visu-ally depicts Horus power over serpents, as well as other potentially harmful creatures, showing him clutching them in his hands. The text of the stela also incants: flow out, poison. Come forth. Go forth on to the ground. Horus will exorcise you. He will punish you. He will spit you out. . . . (apud J. F. Nunn, Ancient Egyptian Medicine. [University of Oklahoma Press, 1996], 105).

19 The conjunction [id] is restored in the lacuna at the beginning of line two with an enclitic yd. The conjunction with this enclitic morpheme is found only in KTU2 1.82, to my knowl-edge, and twice in this line.

20 Cf. KTU2 1.6 vi: 27, which is the only other possible example of the word with the mean-ing pillar, support; Cf. G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartn, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. HdO 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 62.


Olmo Lete has cited a separate hollow root with the meaning to feel, cognate with Hebrew . The resulting translations are as follows:

Caquot: Alors, moi, je ne sens pas dappui, je nai pas dappui.21De Moor and Spronk: Did I not hasten to fulfill the sworn obligation? I have no sworn obligation to fulfill.22Del Olmo Lete: Already I do not feel the curse, already the curse does not affect me!23

There are no morphological clues in the form ah that indicate which of the two options should be preferred. At the same time, if one accepts the identifi-cation of the noun alt with the Hebrew root (curse), then the verbal form ah most likely is related to the Hebrew root . That is, De Moor and Spronks translation represents an unusual coupling of the verb hw (to hasten) with the noun alt; this verb is not typically construed with the noun alt or a similar object associated with illness or execration. By compari-son, Del Olmo Lete has picked-up on a promising possibility for an Aramaic and Arabic collocation using the verb h (to feel, experience) with words denoting pain.24

Line 3: [si]bit . Bali . hizza . Rapi . bin . kma . yri . kilyatahu .wa libbahu The meaning of this line is relatively certain: either Caquots restoration of a verbal form of sbt or del Olmo Letes suggestions of a form of bt are amenable with the context. Somewhat more difficult is the matter of the subject of the imperatives in line three. It seems best to understand the deity Balu as the subject, though the issue is whether the deity is renamed in line three or if he is to be inferred from line one. The first option, namely to understand the word bl in line three as a vocative that restates the subject of the verb eases the transition from third-person verbal forms in line one to second-person forms in line three. At the same time, the alternative proposal has been offered by Cyrus Gordon, who analyzed bl hz as an object phrase (the lord of arrows) and bl from line one as the subject of the verb in line three.25 I have vocalized

21 Caquot Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques, 63.22 De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, 263.23 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 374.24 The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. III -. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996),

179. Cf. Job 20.2.25 Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38 (Rome:1965), 854. It is

noteworthy that Rapu is elsewhere recurrently associated with arrows, both at Ugarit and else-where. For example, see KTU2 1.90: 56; also, the discussion by Pardee to RS 19.013 (D. Pardee, Les textes ritueles. [Paris: 2001], 486) where the god is offered an arrow. The Phoeni-cian inscription KAI 32: 34, too, identifies the god as rp hs. At the same time, this must be


and translated above in keeping with the first option, but neither solution can be conclusively proven.

As for the god Rapu, he is portrayed in KTU2 1.82: 17 as a foe of the god Balu. This is not surprising given the formers role alongside the god Yammu in the death of king Kirtas brothers and wives (KTU2 1.14: 1820). At the same time, Rapu is poorly known at Ugarit and his malevolent behavior in the mythical texts seems to stand in contradistinction with the more agreeable presentation to be inferred from the deitys widespread appearance in the Ugaritic onomastics.

The final matter in this line that requires comment is the third-person suf-fixes (kilyatahu .wa libbahu). These suffixes, whether masculine or feminine, have no clear antecedent within the text. The best solution, therefore, seems to be that no antecedent is present in the text; rather these suffixes would have a trans-textual referent, namely the person who benefits from this magical incantation.26

Lines 45: 4) [tin?] . pku . bi gurri . tin . pka . bi halbi . k tagawwilni . innatku 5) [wa k .] wa apatku . l taaiy.

The beginning of line four is broken and I have chosen to restore an impera-tive of ytn, which is found elsewhere parallel with tny (e.g. KTU2 1.4 vii 2930). Other possible restorations include the verb rgm or the repetition of tny. The subject of these verbs is, again, Balu, whereas the direct object of the first two verbs in line four is the noun p (voice), which is used metonymi-cally for thunder that echoes among the mountains (g urri)27 and cliffs (halbi). The image here is akin to that in KTU2 1.4 vii 2729: Balu opens a rift in the clouds. Balu gives his holy voice (qlh).28 And similar imagery may also be observed in the battle between the god at Enunna, Tipak, and a dragon:

balanced by the observation of I. Cornelius that in the iconographic data Rapus is not primar-ily depicted with the bow or arrow, but rather with a lance (I. Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshep and Baal. [Fribourg: Gttingen, 1994], 5455; 2503). Cf. E. Lipiski, Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity. OLA 181 (Peeters: Leuven, 2010), 1078.

26 It is impossible to know for certain if this was a man or a woman since the suffix {-h} is ambiguous. See also line seven, below.

27 Epigraphically, del Olmo Lete indicates that the g may be better read as a q, transcribing the latter with a question mark (KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation, 247). At the same time, he recognizes the unlikely nature of his epigraphic assessment in his translation of the lemma as mountain and in his commentary (249).

28 Cf. KTU2 1.4 vii: 2537.


He tore open the clouds [and raised?] a violent storm. . . . He shot and [slew] the raging dragon.29

An interpretive crux for understanding the subsequent clauses in lines four and five is the identification of the words nt and pt. Going back to the editio princeps, one finds the interpretation of nt and pt in accordance with the Hebrew and .30 De Moor and Spronk, too, translate: When [they] make your teeth (nt) cry out, and they do not allow your lips (pt) to forget.31 Caquot, too, observed that the proximit de ptk. . . . et de ntk a conduit les interprtes traduir ce dernier mot par > . . . .32 At the same time, Caquot offered an alternative translation that while not impossible, seems contextually out of place: Quand tes annes accomplissent leur circuit, ne laisse pas oublier ta voix.33 Caquot made no attempt to provide a satisfac-tory way to integrate his interpretation of this line with the preceding context, making it a creative, but unsatisfying solution. By comparison, del Olmo Lete has correlated lines four and five of this text with the references to the voice of Balu and his activity in the storm, the terrifying affects of which are described in myth.34 Thus the allusion to KTU2 1.4 vii 3032 continues into the end of line 4 and the beginning of line 5 of KTU2 1.82: Balu repeats the utterance of his lips (pth). His holy voice (qlh) causes the earth [to shud-der], the mountains ( grm) shake at the utterance of his lips (pth).35

In addition to the lexical and literary issues in lines four and five, the syntax of the bicolon ktgwln . ntk [xx .] wptk . l ty deserves brief comment as well. Following Caquot, I understand the first sign k to be a temporal subordinat-ing conjunction.36 At the same time, in contrast to Caquot, who thought that lapodose est au commencement de la ligne 5,37 I have interpreted the initial

29 Reverse: 5) ---hi-it ur-pa mi-ha-a [id-ke?]. . . . 6) is-su-km-ma lab-bi [i-du-uk] (restora-tion in line 6 following Theodore Lewis, CT 13.3334 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116:1 (1996): 32. On the image of lighting in this text see Lewis remarks on p 32 n. 33.

30 Virolleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II, 3, 6.31 De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, 239.32 Caquot. Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques, 54 n. 172.33 Ibid., 35; De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, interpret these verbal forms

as plural understanding hm as the 3rd person independent pronoun (see comments below to line 5).

34 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 374 n. 139 (alluding to KTU2 1.3: iii 22ff.).35 In addition to the imagery of the storm found in this incantation, which alludes to similar

images in the Balu Cycle, the parallelism between gurru and halbu in KTU2 1.82: 17 is not something to be overlooked. In KTU2 1.82: 17, this is significant because this word pair antic-ipates the mention of Balus attack against Mtu in line five. I owe this observation to Matthew Suriano.

36 Caquot, Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques, 34.37 Ibid.


clause in line five as a second clause subordinate to tn . pk . b hlb, resulting in en jambment. That is, the conjunction k subordinates the colon k tgwln . ntk and the following clause [k .] w ptk . l ty, although in the latter case the conjunction has been restored.

Line 56: 5) himma. tagarrimu . l Mti . baraqaku 6) [yiss]ahipuAn issue in the second half of line five is the word hm. On the one hand, De Moor and Spronk understand it to be the third-person independent pronoun. The difficulty with this interpretation, however, is that the text has no clear plural subjects with which to correlate the independent pronoun.38 Caquot, on the other hand, posited the straightforward explanation that hm is the conditional particle. This solution is preferable because it retains Balu as the subject of the verb tgrm, as has been consistently the case to this point.39

As for the noun br[q/t]k,40 Virolleaud indicated in his copy that the third letter of this word was illegible.41 De Moor and Spronk have suggested that it is t and that the lexeme is to be correlated with the Hebrew . Del Olmo Lete, too, has recently suggested that a t is the preferred reading of this sign.42 However, the latter offers no commentary regarding the state of the sign on the tablet and his hand copy depicts it as uncertain and effaced. Moreover, a lemma related to the Hebrew is not yet attested in Ugaritic. By contrast, Caquot, following van Zijl, restores q.43 If van Zijl is correct, the image is the familiar one of the lightning as a divine weapon. This image is well-known in the Hebrew Bible from Ps 18.15 ( He sent forth his arrows and overwhelmed them.44 He shot lightning and confounded

38 De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, identify it with the unmentioned demons being magically restrained.

39 Del Olmo Lete tentatively read these signs as tq?rm (KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation, 247). Del Olmo Lete also preferred to transcribe a q instead of a g in line four (q?r), though he translates the latter as if it were the lemma gr (mountain). I have preferred to retain the reading tgrm in line five. Virolleaud did not indicate that these signs were difficult to read nor did de Moor and Spronk, which suggest the possibility that del Olmo Letes tentative inter-pretation of these signs is due to the fact that the tablet has suffered additional deterioration since these previous editions were prepared.

40 Epigraphically these two letters are similar, differing only by a winkelhocken.41 Contrary to de Moor and Spronk who suggest that Virolleaud intimated that the letter t

was legible. (De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, 240), his copy simply indi-cates one wedge that is effaced and transcribes br[-]k (Viroleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II, 4,5).

42 Del Olmo Lete, KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation, 247, 249.43 Epigraphically, it should be noted that no trace of the second wedge of the q is visible. 44 See E.L. Greenstein, YHWHs Lightning in Psalm 29:7. Maarav 9 (1993): 4957.


them.) and is consistent with Balus character both in the Balu Cycle and in the context of KTU2 1.82.

No restoration has been accepted by all interpreters at the beginning of line six. De Moor and Spronk supplied the preposition l before what they inter-pret as an infinitive hp.45 Caquot suggested the reading [ar]hp, which he translated . . . je vollterai. The metaphorical meaning of to be aflutter, joy-ful, however, is unattested for this root; rather, in Ugaritic, as with the cog-nate form in Hebrew, rhp seems to be a verb of motion strictly associated with flying (birds).46 An alternative to the above proposals is to restore the verb shp, which is congruent with the mythological overtones found throughout KTU2 1.82.47 This restoration is consistent with the fate that Mtu meets in KTU2 1.6 ii:1119.48 A point of comparison for this image in KTU2 1.82 is found in the Hebrew Bible, in Proverbs 28.3, which uses this verbal root to describe the oppression of the poor as an overwhelming rain leaving no food ( ). In this biblical example, then, the verbal root is used to carry the image of the powerful force of a rain-storm, which is precisely the context in which it is restored in KTU2 1.82.49

Line 6: . an . arninu . qla . api . haww . batnma . uhud . balimaThe remainder of line six concludes the mythological allusion to the Balu Cycle with two short appeals to the deities apu and Balu. Here the officiant incants: I will raise (my) voice. The incantor then follows this statement with two parallel exclamations that function as performative statements that were intended to appropriate mythological power for the rituals efficacy.50

45 De Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit, 240.46 E.g. KTU2 1.108:8; 1.18 iv: 21; 1.19 i:32; Dt. 32.11 (cf. Gen 1.3).47 It might also be noted that this verb is also attested in the East-Semitic world in the genre

of incantations. E.g. an Akkadian text from the Kassite period invokes the sun deity (ama) to destroy (sahpu) demons: The text reads (3) gap?-u gal-l-e kit-mu-ru ri-di-i 4) i-na q-bit dUTU DINGIR-ia (5) [. . .] lim-ni sa-NI.NI l-qal-lil (6) l-is-sa-pi-ih gal-l-e. (Henri Limet, Les lgendes des sceaux cassites. [Bruxelles: Palais des acadmies, 1971], 11112.). Numerous are the demons, oppressive are the ones who pursue me! By the command of ama, my god, . . . my evil . . . let it be lightened, let it be dispersed! Let the demons who pursue me be captured!

48 In KTU2 1.6 ii:1119 Anatu is said to have defeated Mtu. In KTU2 1.6 v:11, Mtu bemoans how this fate befell him because of Balu.

49 This biblical passage not only illustrates the verbal roots association with the might of a rain storm, but also shares the ironic use of agricultural imagery found in the Balu Myths description of Mtus defeat. KTU2 1.6 ii:3035 : 30) tihd 31) bn . ilm . mt . b hrb 32) tbqnn . b htr . tdry 33) nn . b it . trpnn 34) b rhm . tthnn . b d 35) tdrn. She apprehends the son of Ilu, Mtu. With a knife she splits him; with a winnowing fork she winnows him; with fire she burns him; with a hand mill she grinds him, in the field she sows him.

50 The text uses qla, voice, rather than p, which is found above to describe Balus power in the storm (cf. KTU2 1.4 vii: 29, 31). The first colon {p . hw} raises an epigraphic


The first statement appeals to Balu and is literarily intuitive, since he is the protagonist throughout the six-tablet myth as well as the first six lines of KTU2 1.82. Balus foes in KTU2 1.82, then, are not altogether surprising either (i.e. batnma),51 given the serpentine imagery found in the account of Balus conflict with Yammu (i.e. KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845). The second exclamation invoking apu (Oh apu, give life!)52 is less apparent, but is still consistent with apus role as an ally of Balu in the Myth where he reassures Ilu that Balu will return and will restore life to the earth.53 Additionally, the identifi-cation of KTU2 1.82:17 as an incantation against serpents (batnma) makes apus presence all the more natural, since she is well-known in other serpent incantations from Ugarit (e.g. KTU2 1.100, KTU2 1.107).54

The reading batnma . uhud . balima requires some justification. Most interpreters have read the signs of the penultimate word in this line as uhd. Del Olmo Letes has offered a new reading: dgd. I have retained the earlier reading of these signs for several reasons. First, del Olmo Lete acknowledges that his collation yields an unintelligible reading, which forced him to emend his new reading to b!gd (with coriander). Furthermore, while del Olmo Lete states that the u is not his preferred epigraphic interpretation, his commen-tary does not indicate why this is the case. Moreover, his photograph does not preclude the reading u and his hand copy even represents this sign as u. As for the h, all previous collations had recognized this sign without problem, leaving one to wonder if del Olmo Letes new reading is simply the result of

question Caquot prefers the reading {hr} following Virolleaud. By contrast, del Olmo Lete takes his cue from the collation of de Moor and Spronk who read {hw}. I have opted for the latter reading.

51 The form, itself, is very likely a plural since there are no putative uses of enclitic m used on this tablet.

52 Del Olmo Letes attempt to interpret rnn as taking a double accusative seems unlikely in light of the Hebrew usage, which does not function this way.

53 Richard C. Steiner has suggested that the Semitic phrase m hwy (mother of a serpent) lay behind the Pyramid Texts imhy (Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts. [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011]). If correct, this would provide the earliest attestation of the lemma hwy, meaning serpent in North West Semitic, albeit mediated through Egyptian. The identification of hw in KTU2 1.82 with this lemma seems to be precluded on the basis of the syntax and the similar phraseology in another fragmentary serpent incantation(?) found on this same tablet (KTU2 1.82:19) where the verb is conjugated (ahw). At the same time, it is not outside the realm of possibility that KTU2 1.82 is punning on a word for serpents (presum-ably spelled hwy). There is no evidence to-date for an Ugaritic lemma h wy meaning serpent, yet the fact that the lemma ri in line 7 might also be viewed as a pun on a potential Ugaritic cog-nate to the Hebrew r()-II (snake venom), makes puns in these lines an attractive proposal, if speculative.

54 See Levine and Tarragon, >: Dealing with Snake-Bites at Ugarit (KTU 1.000, 1.107). Revue Biblique (1998): 481518.


subsequent effacement of the tablet that has made the h appear more like a g.55 Thus because, del Olmo Lete offers no commentary on the sign and his hand copy shows effacement of the sign not previously indicated by other collators of the tablet, I have elected to retain the reading uhd.

Line 7: [a]ttumu . prtl . l raihu . hmt . tmt .Line 7 is the only portion of this incantation that does not seem to be literarily dependent on the Balu Myth. This line, rather, appears to contain a religio-medical prescription for the victim of a snakebite. That said, while there is a high degree of epigraphic certainty regarding line 7,56 this line undoubtedly is the most difficult line in terms of its vocabulary. The disparate interpreta - tions of the words in this line illustrate the many remaining lexicographic uncertainties.

What is more or less agreed upon is that the object of the verb ntm is prtl. Virolleaud understood prtl to be a variant of the word for iron.57 This solu-tion seems unlikely, however, and has been rejected by most interpreters since the spelling of the word for iron in Ugaritic is known to have been brdl (KTU2 4.91: 6).58 Thus being aware of the many medical prescriptions that contain herbal remedies within the incantations in ancient Mesopotamia,59

55 On the difficulties of collations from photograph, see Pardee, The Use of Photographs in Epigraphic Research. Semitica (2008): 215220; Pardee, G. del Olmo Letes Views on Ugaritic Epigraphy and Religion. Ugarit Forschungen 37 (2005): 767815.

56 All recent interpreters have restored a in the break at the beginning of the line. This resto-ration is secured by the reading in line 19 below, where the context suggests the meaning to place. See De Moor and Spronk More on Demons at Ugarit, 240. They relate this verb to the Arabic nazama (to arrange, organize).

57 Virolleaud, Le palais royal dUgarit II, 6.58 The Anatolian origins for the Semitic words related to iron have been persuasively

advanced by M. Valrio and I. Yakubovich (Semitic Word for Iron as Anatolian Loan Word, in : . . , ed. T.M. Nikolaeva [Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Culture, 2010], 10816). Valrio and Yakubovich specifically treat the earliest Semitic attestation of the word iron, Akka-dian parzillum, in the Old Assyrian corpus. As it concerns the Ugaritic word for iron (brdl ), which is attested centuries later, it may simply be noted that the conclusion of Joseph Tropper is consistent with the thesis of Valrio and Yakubovich. Tropper has aggregated examples of loanwords at Ugarit and includes brdl among these noting that, . . . /d/ zur Wiedergabe von nicht-affrizierten Sibilanten, die als stimmhaft empfunden wurden, und ist in dieser Funktionvor allem in Wrtern hurr[itisch] Ursprungsim alph[abetische] ug[aritisch] Textkorpus hu-fig belegt. . . . (Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000, p. 117).

59 In the Mesopotamian tradition, see, for example, M.J. Gellers synthetic discussion Incantations within Akkadian Medical Texts. 38999; Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice. Wiley-Blackwell. 2010.


De Moor and Spronk have associated prtl with the Akkadian piridulu-herb.60 The interpretation of prtl as an herb by De Moor and Spronk makes contex-tual sense, although the origins of the word and the interpretation of its mean-ing remain far from certain.

One of the few clear words in this line is rau, head. That this word is not to be correlated with the Hebrew r()-II, which designates snakes venom61 is clear from the fact that the suffixed pronoun would have no clear reference if taken in this sense.62 Thus the preposition, which is construed with the verb atm, must indicate the location, namely on the head,63 for placing the prtl (herb?).

The penultimate word in this line, hmt may also designate a body-part, the belly or abdomen, which was then involved in the treatment for the snake-bite in some way.64 As a point of comparison, a diagnostic tool for the severity of snakebites, especially of vipers, included nausea and vomiting according to the Brooklyn Papyrus, a fourth century B.C. Egyptian medical text.65 At the same time, if this solution for the lemma hmt is correct, it still remains uncertain precisely how the abdomen was involved in the cure for the snake-bite. All that can be noted is that it seems to be the case that hmt is syntacti-cally related to the final word in this incantation, hmt. This fact, unfortunately, does not clarify the suggested remedy for snakebites, since the meaning of hmt is entirely unclear.66 What exactly is prescribed in line seven, then, remains obscure.

60 De Moor and Spronk identify it with hellebore (More on Demons at Ugarit, 240); CAD P p.395 piridulu (though, it should be added that the CAD indicates the Akkadian piridulu is of uncertain, but non-Akkadian origins). The importance of herbal remedies in Mes-opotamian medicine is illustrated by the Akkadian word ammum, which meant both plant and medicine (CAD /I p. 315ff ammu mngs 1c and 3).

61 See Dt. 32.33 and Lam. 3.9.62 Batnma is best understood as a plural. See comment above on line six.63 One might compare victims of snakebites in the ancient Near East who were treated on

their necks as indicated in an Akkadian pharmacological tablet: Hounds-tongue: a drug for snake or dog bite. You place it on his neck (RA 15 76:11).

64 See, for example, the translation by del Olmo Lete, KTU 1.82: Another Miscellaneous Incantation, 247.

65 If he vomits, he will die. . . . If he does not vomit he will live . . . (Sauneron, Un trait gyptien dophiologie. [Cairo: Institut francais darchologie orientale, 1989], 1721). These symptoms have been documented in modern medicine, too, M. Schneemann, R. Cathomas, S.T. Laidlaw, A.M. El Nahas, R.D.G. Theakston and D.A. Warrell, Life-threatening envenom-ing by the Saharan horned viper (Cerastes cerastes). QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 97:11 (2004): 7234.

66 The only serious attempt to explain this final word has come from de Moor and Spronk, More on Demons at Ugarit. They suggest that it should mean bleed based on a comparison with the Arabic tamata, to bleed. It seems unlikely, however, that the practice alluded to is an


4. KTU2 1.82:17 and Ugaritic Mythology

The above commentary on the epigraphy, philology, morpho-syntax and lexi-cography provide the basis for considering the contributions of KTU2 1.82:17 to Ugaritic mythology and religion. At least three conclusions may be drawn. First, KTU2 1.82:17 is unique, being the only Ugaritic incantation that deals with snakebites and simultaneously shows an awareness of one of the great myths recovered from Ras hamra, namely the Balu. Cycle. The rationale for the integration of well-known mythological elements from the Balu Cycles theomachy67 into an incantation with a religio-magical prescrip-tion for a snakebite is intuitive: the theomachy motif frequently involved the defeat of a serpentine adversary, often by taming, or binding, the mouth of this adversary. For example, a theomachy, like that presented in the Balu Cycle, is alluded to in an Akkadian serpent incantation that invokes the Mes-opotamian myth of Tipaks conflict with a dragon.68 In this Akkadian incan-tation, a theomachy involving Tipaks defeat of a serpentine foe was used to conjure the power to disarm a venomous serpents bite. Furthermore, it should be added that a gods taming or controlling the mouth of a foe in mythologi-cal texts could convey the victors complete subjugation of his opponent. That is, the mouth in the ancient Near East was considered a source of life and power and consequently one of the most difficult bodily organs to restrain.69 Thus in the Mesopotamian myth Enma Eli, when Marduk confronts Tia-mat she is uttering incantations and spells. Then, once Tiamat has opened her mouth to swallow Marduk, she is defeated by a blast that tears open her jaws. The fatal blow is directed at the gaping jaws of Tiamat to signal Marduks

incision at the locale of the bite, or bloodletting, as known from The Brooklyn Papyrus. The practice of bloodletting is not known in the Near East prior to the Greek period (see, Sauneron, Un trait gyptien dophiologie 278; 110112; on bloodletting, see M.J. Geller, Bloodletting in Babylonia, in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine, eds. H.F.J. Horstmanschoff, M. Stol, C. Tilburg [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 30524.). Caquot has dis-missed this interpretation, explaining that de Moor and Spronks solution may rest too heavily on their understanding of the tablet as a treatment for unhealthy menstruation: . . . ces rap-prochements sont trop incertains . . . pour quon restitue la ligne 1 [lbt]y en faveur de ma fille et [dth], ses rgles. (Caquot, Un Recueil Ougaritique de Formules Magiques, 36). Caquot, himself, left this portion of the line untranslated.

67 For an excellent discussion of theomachy, see J.H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (2011): 6874.

68 The incantation is VAT 8383 (edited in J. van Dijk, Vert comme Tipak. OrNS 38 [1969] 540). For the theomachy motif in this mythological tradition, see also F.A.M. Wigger-mann, Tipak, His Seal, and the Dragon muhuu, in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeo-logical Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon, eds. O. Haex et al. (Rotterdam: Balkema, 1989), 11733; Lewis, CT 13.3334 and Ezekiel 32, 2847.

69 See I. Marcus, In His Lips He Held a Spell, Notes in the History of Arts 13/4 (1994): 911.


unqualified victory in this theomachy. Similarly, the biblical depiction of Leviathan in Job 40.2526 calls attention to the might of a dragon by focus-ing on its mouth: Can you pull leviathan with a hook or with a rope restrain his tongue? Can you put a ring through his nose or with a hook pierce his jaw?70 And in the Balu Myth, too, the victory over Tunnanu accentuates the decisive defeat by stating that its jaws were muzzled (itbm [KTU2 1.3 iii: 40]).71 Thus while to-date KTU2 1.82: 17 is unique at Ugarit, it nevertheless fits within the larger Syro-Mesopotamian milieu that this incantation invokes Balus mythical powers associated with the defeated Tunnanu and Mtu for the magical purpose of curing a snakes venomous bites.

Second, it should be noted that KTU2 1.82:17 does not haphazardly appeal to the well-known Balu Cycle as a model for curing snakebites; rather it seems to follow the general narrative arc of at least four of the six tablets that comprise the Balu Mythfrom the battle with Yammu (KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845) to the conflict with Mtu (KTU2 1.5) to apus intervention on Balus behalf (KTU2 1.6 v). As Mark Smith has noted in the first volume of his commentary on the Balu Myth, The question of the degree to which KTU 1.11.6 represents a continuous narrative or a collection of texts lacking narrative continuity remains a controversial issue.72 And while Smith eru-ditely rejoins many of the objections to the discontinuities, especially between KTU2 1.31.6,73 KTU2 1.82: 17 adds significantly to these arguments. That is, KTU2 1.82:17 mirrors the plot of these tablets as they have been recon-structed by most contemporary scholars74 and should be adduced in favor of the traditional reconstruction of at least the final four tablets of the Balu Cycle.

Third, KTU2 1.82:17 nuances our understanding of the theomachy in KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845 of the Balu Cycle. Specifically, KTU2 1.82:17 suggests that more than one mythological adversary is described in Balus battle with

70 It is not surprising, then, that the literary theme of domination over the mouth, which was found in combat myths, was incorporated into serpent incantations. Thus an Akkadian incanta-tion against a snakebite exclaims: I seize the mouth of all snakes. It then goes on to describe the power of the serpents mouth: . . . six are the mouths of the serpent, seven his tongues . . . his very venom can split stone! (IM. 51292: 1) as-ba-at p-s-ri ka-li-i-ma. . . . 9) a ba-a-mi-im i-i-it p-u si-b[i. . . . .] . . . . 13) e-li-ta-u i-pa-s-id ab-na-am. [A full edition may be found in I.L. Finkel, On Some Dog, Snake and Scorpion Incantations, in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, eds. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn [Groningen: Styx, 1999], 226ff.).

71 See Dennis Pardee, Will the Dragon Ever Be Muzzled, UF 15 (1984): 25155.72 Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 4.73 KTU2 1.11.2 are more challenging to connect with the larger cycle, but Smith makes a

compelling case for doing so (The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 38).74 While KTU2 1.82: 17 does not allude to KTU2 1.4, its ordering is largely secured by its

agreed upon connections with KTU2 1.3 (see Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 78).


Yammu. KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845 has evoked comments from many interpreters regarding the list of nine epithets and whether these epithets designate one foe or more than one foe. KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845 reads:

38) . . . la mahatu madda 39) ili yamma la killtu nahara ila rabbama40) la itabim tunnana itam[id ] ahu41) mahatu batna aqallatna42) alyata d abati raama43) mahatu madda ilima ria44) simmattu igla ili tika45) mahatu kalbata ilima ita46) killtu bitta ili dabba

38) I have certainly struck the beloved of 39) Ilu, Yammu, completely finished off Naharu, the great god.40) I have certainly bound (the jaws) of Tunnanu, in order to destroy it,41) I have struck the twisting serpent, 42) the coiled one with seven heads.43) I have struck the beloved of Ilu, Ariu44) I have defeated the calf of Ilu, Atiku45) I have struck the bitch of Ilu, Itu46) I have finished of the daughter of Ilu, Dabbi.

In this text, scholars have debated whether the epithets were simply applied to the god Yammu or if they refer to independent creatures under Yammus authority.75 Wayne Pitard has re-taken this issue most recently and argued that Yammu is to be equated with several of the serpentine creatures delin-eated in the Balu Myth, including Tunnanu.76 Pitard draws this conclusion based upon his treatment of KTU2 1.83, which he believes strongly suggest[s] that Yamm/Nahar in lines 47 and 1112 is the same being as Tunnan in lines 810 and that he is indeed envisioned in the text as a dragon-like monster.77

While Pitards treatment of KTU2 1.83 is exemplary, his conclusion about the relationship between Yammu and Tunnanu is not necessitated by the

75 See the review of literature in W. Pitard, Just How Many Monsters Did Anat Fight (KTU 1.3 III 3847)? in Ugarit at Seventy-Five, ed. Lawson K. Younger (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 7588. For a summary of the problem of who killed Yammu, Balu or Anatu, see N. Wyatt, Who Killed the Dragon?, Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 18598; M. Smith and W. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 2. (Leiden: Brill, 2009): 2538.

76 This interpretation was originally advanced by F. Lkkegaard, A Plea for El, the Bull, and Other Ugaritic Miscellanies, in Sudia Orientalia Ionnni Pedersen: Septuagenario, ed. F.F. Hvidberg (Copenhagen: Hauniae, 1953), 21935. More recently, see W. Pitard, The Binding of Yamm, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57/4 (1998): 276; Pitard, Just How Many Monsters Did Anat Fight.

77 Pitard, The Binding of Yamm, 279.


tablet; it is an inference predicated on the close proximity of the two terms on that tablet. The fragmentary state of KTU2 1.83 may equally be interpreted as containing two distinct entitiesYammu and the dragon, Tunnanu. In fact, the uncertainty surrounding this text is underscored by the fact that its precise genre still remains unknown.78 Moreover, in contrast to the position that Yammu bore the epithet Tunnanu in KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845, I would suggest that KTU2 1.82: 17 more clearly presents Tunnanuas well as Atika whom I have partially restored at the end of line 1as creatures distinct from Yammu. As has been noted by numerous interpreters, this conclusion is con-sistent with the best-known theomachy in Mesopotamia, that in Enma Eli IV, where Timat is distinguished from the many serpentine creatures that she has created and who are defeated alongside her in the battle with Marduk.79 Furthermore, that Tunnanu as well as Atika are to be distinguished as sepa-rate creatures from Yammu may be deduced from the way in which KTU2 1.82: 17 foregrounds the serpentine creatures Tunnanu and Atika, whereas a reference to Yammu is nowhere to be found. Should Yammu have been portrayed as serpentine in KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845, then one might expect that Yammu would have been invoked by name in KTU2 1.82: 17 in the effort to conjure Balus power for curing a snakebite. That is, to understand Tunnanu and Atika in KTU2 1.82: 17 as mere epithets for Yammu would be to inter-pret Tunnanu and Atika as oddly oblique allusions to the Balus theomoachy in a text that is otherwise straightforward in its references to the Balu Cycle. By contrast, the prominence of Tunnanu and Atika along with the absence of Yammu in KTU2 1.82: 17, then, strongly suggests that Tunnanu and Atika were creatures distinct from the god Yammu, not being mentioned in KTU2 1.82 precisely because of his lack of serpentine associations.

78 It seems to be either a short mythological text or an incantation (Pitard, The Binding of Yamm, 261).

79 While the observation by M. Smith and W. Pitard (The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 2. [Leiden: Brill, 2009]: 2556) that Enma Eli literarily portrays Timat in several different forms is provocative, it sublimates the obvious structural parallels between the Mesopotamian theomachy and that of the Balu Cycle. Most importantly, it is clear from Enma Eli that Timat created hoards of creatures, including serpentine ones (I:13244), and that these crea-tures were defeated alongside Timat in the battle with Marduk. Thus the literary depiction of Timat being multi-formal does not change the fact that Enma Eli presents Timat as distinct from the serpentine creatures, both being defeated in a single battle with Marduk. Moreover, the serpentine characteristics of Timat in Enma Eli are not all that clear (cf. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 2. [Leiden: Brill, 2009]: 2556). The passages from Enma Eli cited in support of Timats serpentine qualities, in fact, simply describe her as having a mouth (pm; Enma Eli IV:97) and tail (zibbatum; Enma Eli V:59). And the latter word, zibbatum, can be used to describe the end of a canal, which is congruent with the context of Enma Eli V: 4866.


Conclusion

An appraisal of the epigraphy, philology, morpho-syntax, and lexicography of KTU2 1.82: 17 has highlighted the contributions that this short text makes to the understanding of Ugaritic mythology and religion. It has been noted how KTU2 1.82: 17, while unique as a serpent incantation from Ugarit, is paralleled by Mesopotamian incantations that draw upon mythological motifs, in particular theomachies, for the purposes of magical healing. Additionally, the above discussion of KTU2 1.82: 17 reinforces the conclusions of contem-porary scholarship regarding the order of at least four of the six tablets that comprise the Balu Cycle. And lastly, this short Ugaritic incantation sharpens our understanding of the great Balu Cycle by evincing a distinction between Yammu and Tunnanu, hence inclining one against the interpretive possibility that Yammu is the only combatant confronted by Balu in KTU2 1.3 iii: 3845.

Documents

Miglio - Study of Serpent Incantation KTU 1.82 1-7