Demons of Ancient Mesopotamia: Lamaštu

For one of my classes I had to do a textual analysis of 30 lines of incantaion(s) that dealt with a deity or demon. I chose to do my analysis on two incantations involving the demon Lamaštu. For those of you who are fluent in Judaic history, Lamaštu is the demon upon whom a similar being Lilith is based in later Judaism. In Judaism, Lilith was the first wife of Adam and didn't take kindly to certain sexual presuppositions that Adam had. After fighting, Lilith vows that she will cause harm to the children of Adam and any other "wife" he takes. Thus in Jewish tradition, Lilith is a demon that causes harm to infants and childbearing women, as was Lamaštu several thousand years before.

General Introduction to the Deity

                Despite her apparent demon status in Mesopotamia, Lamaštu was the daughter of Anu and thus not in the same category as other demons (Black and Green, 116). Her primary targets, according to the various texts of Mesopotamia that deal with her, were infants and pregnant mothers. It was thought that Lamaštu caused miscarriages and stole babies from their beds (Black and Green, 116). The texts give no information about why Lamaštu has taken this role but they seem to indicate that her maleficent activities are a product of her own desire to do harm.

Two Lamashtu Statues

Description of Lamaštu’s Nature and Character Profile

Both texts describe Lamaštu as the “daughter of Anu,” indicating that the demon was, in some sense, a divine being. With Lamaštu’s ignominious exit from the divine court she also acquired a “function” among humans and, presumably, an altered visage. We are not told of Lamaštu’s looks or function before her “fall,” but these texts do describe her appearance as a demon, that is, as wholly unhuman.

The first magical text describes her as having an “awful glamor,” perhaps a radiance or general visage that inspired fear (ln. 1). She is a “she-wolf” and has the “face of a ravening lion,” characteristics of predators than can inflict a great deal of damage upon their prey. Likewise, in the second text the magic describes Lamaštu as having long hands, long nails, and forearms covered in blood (lns. 4-5; also in text 1, ln. 4). These all seem to be characteristic traits not only of a lion or carnivorous predator but of one who gorges on it prey frequently enough to have blood still staining it skin. This is an important characteristic when speaking about Lamaštu’s “function,” as will be discussed below. The animalistic nature of Lamaštu is further encapsulated in the observation that she no longer wears clothes (first text, ln. 3), indicating that the demon is totally outside of the realm of human society and thus non-human.

Lamashtu

Furthering the notion of Lamaštu being an animal, both texts transition from depicting the demon as a large predator, to a smaller, more elusive creature: the snake. Both texts describe Lamaštu as entering the house in snake-like ways. In the first text, Lamaštu slithers like a “serpent” through the window (ln. 5), and leaves “at will,” suggesting either some sort of transitory state of being (e.g. mist, fog), or at least the quality of slipperiness that characterize snake movement. In the second text, Lamaštu is depicted more concretely as a snake, “slithering over the doorpost” to attack its victims (lns. 6-7).

Function of Lamaštu

Partial Tablet Carving Possibly of Lamashtu

The function of Lamaštu is not difficult to ascertain, though the texts give no indication of how the demon came to possess this function. Lamaštu’s function is, quite simply, causing the death of infants and complicating childbirth. In the first text this is less obvious as the magician merely mimes a typical Lamaštu saying, “Bring me your sons that I may suckle them, and your daughters, that I may nurse them” (ln. 7). Combined with the image of Lamaštu being first a lion and then a serpent, Lamaštu’s statement is clearly a menacing one intended to convey her intention of, perhaps, suckling/nursing on the children, rather than providing sustenance for them.

In the second text Lamaštu’s intention is stated more clearly for the audience. The text narrates Lamaštu’s movements as if observing them from afar,

                She slithered over the doorpost casing,

                She has caught sight of the baby!

                Seven seizures has she done him in his belly! (lns. 7-9)

Lamaštu causes the infant pain in an attempt to kill it. Seizures are specifically mentioned but the magic calls on Lamaštu to “pluck out” her nails and “let loose” her arms suggesting that the infant is under some severe distress.

                The way in which Lamaštu is treated by the ašipu is different in each text and may reflect the severity of the situation that the ašipu is dealing with. There is no indication in the first text that Lamaštu has done anything negative to the infant, just indications of intent to do harm – perhaps via an omen or portent. This suggests that the demon has not yet arrived and that the magic intended is apotropaic in nature. This might explain why Lamaštu is encouraged to leave with gifts of jewelry (ln. 14-15), gems (ln. 16), clothes (ln. 13), and cosmetic apparel (ln. 17). Perhaps underlying the conception of Lamaštu behind this text is that these things will beautify her, helping her regain some sense of her original form and thus pacify her desire to cause the infant harm. The second text, however, appears to be meant for an instance where Lamaštu has already negatively affected the infant. In this case, the ašipu enjoins the demon to depart in the name of Ea and casts her out into the “open country” with sand in her mouth and dust on her face (lns. 15-16).

The reason for the two different treatments is not immediately clear. Perhaps the ašipu reasons that, in the first instance, any attempt at command or manipulation would focus the demon’s wrath on him instead, and thus attempts to pacify or distract Lamaštu with gifts. Why a different approach is used in the second text can only be speculated upon but two options come to mind. 1) The danger to the child is no longer a possibility but a reality, and thus forceful measures must be taken despite any potential backlash against the ašipu; or, 2) since in the second text the demon has already attacked the infant, it has effectively shown itself. That is, Lamaštu can no longer slither like a snake unbeknownst to anyone. Having seen the demon, the ašipu has no fear of being attacked in secret and can forcefully drive Lamaštu away.