Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts (1932–1935)
More actions
| Author | Warren R. Dawson(1888–1968) |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Composed | 1932–1935 |
| Published | 1932–1935 |
| Publisher | Egypt Exploration Society |
| Place | London |
| Volumes | Five instalments in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vols. 18–21 |
| Volume | Vol. 20, no. 1/2 (June 1934) |
|---|---|
| Pages | 44–45 |
| Chapter | Part III, section 11 |
| Regions documented | Egypt |
| Uses documented | Medicinal (external preparations only); fibre, from the Pyramid Texts |
| Taxonomic significance | Proposes the identification of the Egyptian plant name šmšmt with hemp, Cannabis sativa |
| Digital facsimile | View on BHL |
|---|
Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts is a series of five philological articles by the English
Egyptologist Warren R. Dawson, published in
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology between 1932 and
1935.[1][2] The five parts carry twenty-four numbered entries, each
taking a word from the Egyptian medical papyri whose sense was
disputed and arguing for an identification. The subjects are plants, animals, minerals, contested words
and named afflictions. Entry 11, in the third instalment, concerns cannabis: there Dawson argues that
the plant name he transliterates šmšmt denotes hemp.[3]
Whether cannabis is attested in pharaonic Egypt turns on that reading, which Dawson draws from the distribution of the prescriptions and from later Arabic medicine rather than from any statement the Egyptian texts make.[3] As a work of philology the series is also evidence of how European Egyptology of the 1930s reconstructed the pharmacopoeia of the papyri, which places it in the history of the plant's documentation as much as in the record of the plant itself.
Composition and publication
The five instalments appeared in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, published for the Egypt Exploration Society in London, over four years: part I in volume 18 (1932), part II in volume 19 (1933), part III in volume 20, no. 1/2 (1934), part IV in volume 20, no. 3/4 (1934) and part V in volume 21 (1935).[1][4][3][5][2] Each runs to between four and six printed pages.
The entries are numbered continuously across the series rather than restarting with each part. Entries 1 to 4 fall in part I, 5 to 8 in part II, 9 to 14 in part III, 15 to 20 in part IV and 21 to 24 in part V.[1][4][3][5][2] The series carries no preface and states no programme; it opens at entry 1 and ends at entry 24.
The twenty-four entries
Eleven of the twenty-four entries are headed "the plant" or "the herb". The remainder treat animals, minerals, disputed words and named afflictions.[1][4][3][5][2] Entry 1 argues that a word read by earlier editors as brain, as a viscus or as roe denotes the otolith of a fish.[1] Entry 3 turns on a passage of Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 1 in Alan Gardiner's then recent edition. Ludwig Keimer had already connected the lettuce to Min; Dawson reads the new passage as ascribing the same aphrodisiac property to Seth.[1] Entry 18 treats the beetle in medicine; entries 20 and 23 minerals; entries 15 and 24 named afflictions.[5][2]
The botanical entries propose a modern species or genus for each Egyptian name. Entry 5 equates a plant with two species of mandrake; entry 10 argues for the colocynth, Citrullus colocynthis; entry 12 for bryony, Bryonia dioica; entry 14 for a Convolvulus; entry 16 reads "Thoth's feather" as a Potentilla, probably P. reptans; entry 22 identifies a pea, Pisum.[4][3][5][2] Entry 11 is one of this group and takes the same form.
Method
Each entry collects the occurrences of a word across the medical papyri, records which part of the plant or animal is specified and whether the prescription is external or internal, then looks for a candidate whose properties fit that distribution. Dawson treats the internal-versus-external pattern as diagnostic.[3]
For the comparative check he works through the classical and Arabic materia medica, principally Dioscorides, Theophrastus and Apuleius Barbarus, together with Ibn al-Baytar, cited throughout in Lucien Leclerc's translation.[3][5][2] Where excavated material exists he uses it. Entry 14 cites specimens of a Convolvulus among the floral remains Petrie recovered at Illahun. Entry 22 cites two species of Pisum from the same site alongside finds from the Roman cemetery at Hawara. Both rest on Newberry's reports in Petrie's excavation volumes.[3][2]
Dawson cites the papyri by the sigla conventional in the Egyptology of his period, set out in a footnote to part V: B, E, H and L for the Berlin, Ebers, Hearst and London medical papyri, Ed. S. for the Edwin Smith Papyrus in Breasted's edition, Ch. B. for the Chester Beatty papyri and CC. for the Coptic medical papyrus of Cairo in Chassinat's.[2] The bracketed numbers that follow a citation refer to the sections of Wreszinski's edition.[1][4]
Section 11: the plant šmšmt
Section 11 calls the herb somewhat rare in Egyptian medicine and lists its occurrences, all external: the roots, for fever; the juice and, separately, crushed seeds, for irrigating the rectum; a preparation for a sore toe-nail; and a use for uterine contraction.[3] Of the fever prescription Dawson writes that the choice of the herb is "clearly due to its punning" on the word for fever.[3]
Against reading šmšmt as sesame, Sesamum indicum, which he calls tempting because of the Arabic šmšm, Dawson argues that sesame is constantly used for internal doses whereas the Egyptian plant never is. In favour of hemp he cites the appearance of the word at Pyramid Texts §514, where it carries an elaborate determinative and is spoken of as a plant from which ropes are made. On that basis he judges the equivalence with Cannabis sativa "much more likely" and adds that the Arabic medical writers hold hemp to be unfit for internal use, which matches the external-only distribution he has set out.[3]
Basis of the identification
Dawson gives three grounds: sesame fails the internal-versus-external test; the Pyramid Texts passage attests a rope fibre for the same word; Arabic pharmacological opinion holds hemp unfit for internal use. Each is drawn from a text. He puts the equivalence no higher than "much more likely".[3]
No specimen is cited for šmšmt. No cannabis material from an Egyptian context is named anywhere in the series.[3][2] Dawson used excavated remains where they were available to him, including in entry 14 of the instalment that carries section 11.[3]
Reception and historiography
Significance for landrace documentation
Section 11 supplies two things to the record of cannabis in Egypt. The first is a dated identification carrying its author's own hedge: Dawson set out the occurrences he worked from, the test he applied and the ceiling he placed on the result, all within the two pages the entry occupies.[3] The second is the Pyramid Texts passage, the one fibre use the series records for the plant.[3]
Egypt's place in the landrace cannabis record rests on documents rather than on collected material. Pharmakologisch-medicinische Studien über den Hanf (1856) documents the country from the far end of that record, through Prosper Alpin's 1591 account of the preparations bers, bernavi and bosa.
See also
- Cannabis sativa – The species Dawson names
- Cannabis taxonomy – The competing species concepts under which the genus is read
- Egypt – The country hub, whose account of cannabis before the Arabic period rests on section 11
- Colloquies on the Simples and Drugs of India (1563) – Garcia ab Orta's identification of Asian drug plants against the classical and Arabic authorities
- Herbarium Amboinense (1690) – Rumphius's catalogue, which records cannabis from direct description and a plate rather than from an argument about a word
- Pharmakologisch-medicinische Studien über den Hanf (1856) – Martius's dissertation, which reaches Egypt through Prosper Alpin's 1591 account of bers, bernavi and bosa
- Hamarneh (1972), Pharmacy in Medieval Islam and the History of Drug Addiction – The Arabic medical tradition Dawson's comparative argument draws on
- Lozano (2001), The Therapeutic Use of Cannabis sativa (L.) in Arabic Medicine – Arabic medical opinion on hemp, the third of Dawson's three grounds
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Dawson, Warren R. (1932). "Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 18 (3/4): 150–154.
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 Dawson, Warren R. (1935). "Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: V". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 21 (1): 37–40.
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 Dawson, Warren R. (1934). "Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: III". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 20 (1/2): 41–46.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Dawson, Warren R. (1933). "Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: II". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 19 (3/4): 133–137.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Dawson, Warren R. (1934). "Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: IV". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 20 (3/4): 185–188.
External links
- Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts – part I, JEA 18 (1932), pp. 150–154, on JSTOR (subscription or free JSTOR account required)
- Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: II – JEA 19 (1933), pp. 133–137, on JSTOR
- Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: III – JEA 20 (1934), pp. 41–46, on JSTOR; the instalment carrying section 11
- Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: IV – JEA 20 (1934), pp. 185–188, on JSTOR
- Studies in the Egyptian Medical Texts: V – JEA 21 (1935), pp. 37–40, on JSTOR