Simple Summary
The origins of veterinary medicine are still not fully understood because ancient sources rarely describe the people who treated sick animals. For many years, historians have attempted to identify the “first veterinarian”, but this approach may project modern professional concepts onto ancient societies. In this study, we re-examined a royal letter from the ancient Mesopotamian city of Mari, written approximately 3800 years ago, concerning an official named Ipiq-Enlil. Although he has previously been described as “a kind of veterinarian”, this interpretation has never been critically evaluated from the perspective of veterinary history. By comparing this letter with other sources from Mesopotamia and Egypt, we show that it provides important evidence for the gradual emergence of specialised knowledge and practice related to the treatment of animals. These findings help explain how specialised animal healthcare emerged and show that the close relationship between human and animal medicine has deep historical roots.
Abstract
The origins of veterinary medicine remain a subject of debate. The search for the “first veterinarian” has often led to the application of modern professional concepts to ancient societies. Among the Mesopotamian sources, particular attention has been given to ARM XXVI/1, text 270 from the royal archives of Mari, in which Jean-Marie Durand described Ipiq-Enlil as une espèce de vétérinaire (“a kind of veterinarian”). Despite the potential importance of this interpretation for the history of veterinary medicine, it has never been critically examined in the veterinary literature. The present study reassesses the letter concerning Ipiq-Enlil in the light of Durand’s philological commentary and compares it with other key Near Eastern sources relating to animal healthcare, including the Kahun Veterinary Papyrus, §§224–225 of the Code of Hammurabi, the records concerning Abū-ilīšu, and the seal of Ur-lugal-edinna. Our analysis indicates that the expression une espèce de vétérinaire represents Durand’s philological interpretation rather than a literal translation of the cuneiform text. Comparison with other Near Eastern sources shows that practical knowledge relating to animal health was already well developed during the first half of the second millennium BCE. At the same time, the available evidence does not support the existence of a distinct veterinary profession in the modern sense. Instead, the case of Ipiq-Enlil points to an early stage in the differentiation of specialised animal healthcare from a shared medical tradition encompassing both humans and animals.