Orientation/Preliminary Questions

The object of this board is to explore the Mesopotamian magic tradition in as authentic a form as is possible, in conjunction with scholarly progress and interpretation. Mesopotamian magic as a subject is far to broad to fit under one microscope, so my own initial focus will be on the early magic tradition (by which I mean E.D, Sargonic, UrIII and O.B incantations), however contributions from members posting on other periods would be considered most exceedingly welcome at any time.
As far as this particular genre is concerned, the early magic tradition has only been elucidated in recent years with many incantations appearing in publications for the first time. Particularly outstanding contributions were van Dijk's 1985 "Early Incantations and Rituals, YOS XI" which evidently had been a work in progress for 30 years and which made available O.B and UrIII incantations from the Yale collection. Krebernik's 1984 work "Die Beschworungen aus Fara und Ebla" made available for the first time the extent Early Dynastic incantations. Also significant are M. Geller's 1985 "Forerunners to Udughul" (O.B incantations) and in 2003 "Ur III Incantations from the Frau Professor Hilprecht-Collection" (which roughly doubled the number of available UrIII incantations.)
The recent progress on and availability of these incantations has allowed Scholars to attempt to classify and conceptualize the early incantations however studies at this point often seem preliminary, and conclusions are to varying degree's tentative (in example Cunningham 1997.) While it will undoubtedly be of high interest to see the development and further sophistication of these studies, I have as my initial goals here (maybe some of you will share them.) :

First: A thorough understanding of the discovery, improvement and theory posited thus far (or "catching up" to current progress in so far as that is possible)
Second: A detailed examination of the unanswered questions which will inevitably be looming, due in part to the state of research as a whole. Examples of material which may assist on these occasions are contemporary literary works, later incantation parallels, archaeological evidence, and assorted historical or cultural context.

The project is thus very open ended and I anticipate many unexpected lines of thought and questioning will develop. To provide at least a partial framework or context, Ill list below some of my preliminary questions, which I'm sure will be answered in the process of the above two goals. All are encouraged to reply on this thread with additional preliminary questions in an uninhibited manner. They dont have to be long. (Or, did you have some other Mesopotamian magic discussion group you were saving those for?)

Question 1: About the Classification of the Early Incantations - The Sorcerer or the Exorcist? (magic or religion)

This question deals with the basic nature of the magic involved in the earliest incantations, that is who used it, for what purpose and also from what does it draw from. The first time I really read about this was in the book "Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia" by J. Bottero (2004), an excellent overview but somewhat broad and potentially misleading on certain specifics. I couldnt help but be fascinated by his treatment of the early magic system however.
Bottero uses two related but mutually exclusive terms "magic" and "exorcistic", both of which he explains are employed toward "the elimination of suffered evil." That is illness, calamity and similar misfortune. It was in attempting to combat suffered evil that (as Bottero explains) two systems were developed "first magic; then exorcism" (its this successive explanation of early magic that characterizes Bottero's view.)

Of the magical system he describes "The Magical Explanation of Evil" p.186:

"A number of indications lead us to believe that the most archaic explanation of evil resembled a small-scale model of the aforementioned explanation of the origins of the world. The gods were viewed as rather indulgent and were not held responsible for those annoying and cruel accidents in life that could easily diminish our zeal in our service to them. Such accidents were attributed to imaginary beings who still vaguely resembled humans, or something close to human, but were necessarily superior to us and inferior to the gods. Through innate evilness, these beings attacked people as irritable ruffians would, without any other motive then their bad temper, thereby bestowing upsets and misfortunes upon humans and poisoning their existence.
We may assume that a specific being was imagined for a specific evil from the fact that the Mesopotamians had no generic term to designate those malevolent beings as a whole, such as dingir/ilu to refer to gods. There was no term in either Sumerian or Akkadian for "demons" or "devils" or anything that resembled them, only the specific names for mysterious and noxious beings, some borrowed from repressive and traditionally harsh institutions such as "jailer/policeman" (gala/gallu). We do not know much about most of these monstrous, fearsome, dangerous, and evil anthropomorphous or zoomorphous beings (udug/utukku, a.sag/asakku, gedim/etemmu, etc; the oldest terms were borrowed from the Sumerians, like many of the names of the gods.) Names were even borrowed from disastrous forces such as illnesses, the same name evoking the effect and the personalized cause: fever was caused by Fever; epilepsy by Epilepsy, and so on. The Akkadians not only Akkadianized the Sumerian terms but later added their own to the mix (ahhazu/"Gripper", mamitu, "Perjurer".) Since the primary language of magical and exorcistic documents, unlike those of divination, was Sumerian, it is very likely that these evil personnel, like many divinities, originated with the Sumerians, to whom magic and exorcism would then belong, at least in part, whatever their possible precedents or borrowings may have been.
The only possible reason that could be given to explain attacks by "Demons" (as we would say), was their wantonness and pure malevolence, for the attacks could not be explained through any provocation on the part of their victims. Such was the "magical" explanation of evil."

So the demons in this system were not divinely controlled, and acted of their own accord. The magic user in this system he terms a "Sorcerer". Bottero depicts the sorcerer as reliant on his own "anti-evil" techniques, his voice "incantation" and hand (ritual manipulation through the use of instruments/products) to combat demonic influence also independently of divine intervention.


For the sake of brevity, I will sum his corresponding "Exorcistic Explanation of Evil" p.187:

Bottero: "A number of scattered facts, dating from the middle of the third millennium, alert us to a profound change in the exegesis of misfortune, one that was probably drawn out over the centuries. The magical system, at first independent and the only one known, was gradually absorbed by the strictly religious system, which, to clarify everything that occurred here on Earth, knew only the single power and intervention of divinities, before whom even the strongest demons could only bow down and submit themselves."

In so saying, Bottero is making a case that
a) On or around 2500 B.C. Demonic entities were chaotic, or acted independently of divine will
b) A "number of scattered facts" most likely social/political changes caused a religious re-orientating of Demonic entities to the extent they were considered subservient to divine will.

He states further that evil "forces were gradually recognized as being incapable of persecuting and harming people without having first received orders from the gods, of whom those demons were only the "executors." Because the gods couldnt be attributed with such sadism (very broadly) Bottero explains a correlating centralization of the concept of sin, a phenomena he associates with the rise of Semitic influence. Demons in this system then, as oppose to being chaotic, was subservient to the gods, who might be incensed by some sin/transgression to release such evil, but who might be entreated by the exorcist to intervene and contain the demonic forces.
So the magic user here, the Exorcist, was wholly reliant on divine intervention, while at the same time still incorporating much of the earlier Incantation and ritual procedures. ("...conserved the manual rituals of magic but completely re-orientated them.")


The Actual Question: I can go in to more details on Bottero's view elsewhere, but to conclude on it for now, his claim is that there was an early system of magic that is evident in early dynastic incantations "We have ample documentary proof that such a system functioned in ancient Mesopotamia, at first alone, then more or less engulfed or supplanted by exorcism" and "As has been point out, the use of strictly "magical" defenses, without completely disappearing, became somewhat overshadowed in the third millennium (it was still noted in Fara and Ebla around 2500) by the exorcistic "reform" movement, whose system from then on was extraordinarily developed and maintained until the very end."
It cant be doubted that there are difference's between the Early Dynastic incantations and those of later periods, however the question is wether Bottero's Sorcerer is really evident in these texts or no. Its a fascinating proposition, but Cunningham's far more thorough study recognizes no such system. In fact his "Deliver Me From Evil: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500-1500 BC" (1997) speaks of just the one system- that is the religious or exorcistic one. Part of the introduction reads:

"Incantations in the period under discussion [2500-1500] are generally classified as magical. This study concludes by summarizing the preceding analysis of the Incantations and discussing wether is supports this classification in the light of the various distinctions made in anthropology between magic and religion. In the analysis of the incantations it is proposed that their principal concern is mediation between human and divine domains - in terms of narrative in divine dialogues, in terms of objects in divine purifiers and in terms of people and priests - and that these mediations complement temples as the primary place of mediation between human and divine. It is therefore suggested that rather than isolating incantations from temples by classifying them as magical, the Mesopotamian conceptual scheme should be respected and they should be classified as religious."

The two possible classifications of especially the Early Dynastic incantations are both very interesting, even if I am persuaded more by one then the other. The definitive overruling of one would tell us just as much as solidly establishing the other.
I should also mention again though that Bottero only states that his magic system can "still be noted" In Fara and Ebla 2500, where Early Dynastic texts were uncovered. But he isn't explicitly classifying those texts within his 'magic system' either. The question is, what is it that can be noted there in terms of the 'magic system' if anything?

Still to follow: Other Questions.