Roman oculists' medicine stamps and collyria / [C.J.S. Thompson].

  • Thompson, C. J. S. (Charles John Samuel), 1862-1943
Date:
[1920?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Roman oculists' medicine stamps and collyria / [C.J.S. Thompson]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    138/150 (page 24)
    17.* 1 If a man[’s eyes are sick, **ammi, hyoscyamus, rose]s, lolium, mastab- plant, fat of *opopanax, seed of pine, gall (?) [of the tanners] 2 ... in curd, suet of the kidney of a male sheep, wax (?) of honey thou shaft include,3 4 * apply to his eyes. 19.4 If a man’s eyes [are sick, * storax in curd thou shalt bray and apply :] [If a man]’s [eyes] are sick, cantharides (?) in curd thou shalt bray (and) apply. 20.4 If a man’s eyes are sick [alum in curd thou shalt bray and apply : If a man’s eyes are sick, lol]ium (?) in milk thou shalt boil (and) apply. 21. If a man’s eyes are full of blood, and day and night not . . . and the middle of his eyes is red, his eyes being dim, 5 thou shalt reduce roses . . . [in] cows’ [milk (?)] or in the milk of a harlot6 thou shalt knead (and) bind on. In the morning thou shalt take it off, and bray arsenic 7 in curd, 1 Part duplicate of Scheil, BA. 1921, xviii, 1, 6. 2 Kammu (sa askapi) : Ku. iii, ii, 18 : cf. 19, 6, 8, 10, 13, externally for eyes (note the peculiar form of the ideogram) : for eyes (10, 4, 6), ears (34, 1, 28). It cannot be the “ sumach of the leather-workers ” of SM. ii, 487 (the Assyrian for “ sumach ” is wlid.gab, sapru, AH. § 10, eg) ; but gall is used for both eyes (frequently) and ears in SM. (ii, 112). The oak-galls are the source of tannic acid, (a styptic) which is a staple commodity of the hills of North Mesopotamia (see my chapter in Woolley, Carckemish, ii). What seems to be conclusive is 12, 4, 6 : ina lipi kaliti alpi salmi Jcima kam-ma, i.e. “ in the kidney-fat of an ox black as gall ”. Cf. sukta sa askapi, 12, 8, 5, and its duplicate, 20, 2, 5. For the sign askapu see Christian, Vienna Oriental Journal, 1911, 425 ; De Genouillac, OLZ. 1908, 381 ; Meissner, OLZ. 1911, 385. 3 Tustabbal. 4 Duplicate Scheil, BA. 1921, xviii, 1, p. 6. p. a DUL-ma, presumably katmalma), since dulmu appears to be out of the question. EndTI- su DUL-ma u-kal (9, 1, 37) : ... u DUL-ma ta-za-ak (62, 3, 14) : enu DUL-ma isakkan(an) (?) (13, 3, 5) : ... -su-u dul na-di- . . . (95, 4, 3). Cf. kat-mu (22, 3, 1, 2). v y/ 6 s(l]samka (or, sal.sam.ka). Samkatu is another form of samhatu (MA. 1058), and presumably this is the same. Cf. 1. 33 (curious) ; 12, 3, 5 ; 13, 2 r. 9 ; 13, 6, 13 ; 57, 10, 5, 7 ^as.har, (probably to be read thus instead of «as.hab). Before discussing this (which, as az.har on CT. xiv, 8, obv. 14= sim.bi.zi.da * sig.* sig) it will be well to discuss sim.bi.* sig.* sig of 1. 28 (Br. 5185, 5186) first. Consider the following equivalences :— sim.bi.* sig.* sig = leru, sipu (Br. 5185, 5186). sim.bi. guskin = leru, sipu (Br. 5187, 5188). = sipu, sindi liurasi (SAI. 6297). = sipu (Br. 8487). = sipu, leru, damatu (Br. 5198-5200). = leru, sindi ni- . . . (SAI. 3548). From a comparison of these, and from analogy with sindi liurasi, we may reasonably see in sim . bi . * sig . * sig an original equivalence sindu arku. Pinches was nearly right when he said that sindu is “ probably not ‘ spot ’ but certainly mark ’ (JBAS. 1898, 444, quoted MA. 1072): “an eight-year-old brown donkey without IM. SIM. GU SKIN IM.GUSKIN SIM.GUSKIN IM. SIM.TAK.IS