|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jul 22, 2007 5:40:46 GMT -5
Necromancy in Mesopotamia would certainly be on obscurity I would enjoy seeing explored, I have no doubt the occult aspect of the subject combined with the rarity of it as a perceived aspect of Mesopotamian culture, will make it a significant challenge. Though I am in midst of surveying my source's for helpful information, Im suspecting any lack of material would be a lack of attestation in the texts rather then a lack of scholarly willingness to explore the subject. Ill start things rolling on this then, with a brief look at some word resources: (Have attached ePSD picture of the cuneiform for necromancer for any who are also in awe of cuneiform.) From ePSD: psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html1. *ePSD Necromancer result one: -lugidimak [NECROMANCER] (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. lu2-gidim-ma "necromancer" a)form: b) base: c) morph d)attestations a. lu2-gidim-ma-ka b.[ lu2-gidim-ma] c. ~,ak d. 1 One attestation, O.B. Proverb, (proverb #3.168, ETCSL C.6.1.03) še muš5 niĝ2-gig lu2-gidim-ma-ka 297. The muš barley is reserved for the necromancer. Akkadian: [from Lu2-azalag2 A, ša e#-ţe4#-mi ( ša e-ţe4-mi)] [from Lu2-azalag2 B-C, ša# i#-ţi-im-mi# ( ša i-ţi-im-mi)] 2. ePSD Necromancer result two: -lusaĝbuluga [NECROMANCER] (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga "necromancer" a) form: b) base: c) morph d) attestations a. u2-saĝ-bulug-ga b.[ lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga] c. ~ d. 2 Two attestations, O.B. 1. via DCCLT - OB Lexical - Lu2-azlag2 A - line 357 cuneiform.ucla.edu/dcclt/Q000301/Q000301.html(see below) 2. via DCCLT - OB Lexical - Lu2-azlag2 B-C - segment 6, line 4 cuneiform.ucla.edu/dcclt/Q000302/Q000302.html(see below) Akkadian: [from Lu2-azalag2 B-C, mu-še-li# e#-[ţe4]-mi# ( mu-še-li e-[ţe4]-mi)] [from Lu2-azalag2 B-C, amu-še-li e-ţi-mi# ( amu-še-li e-ţi-mi)]
Lu2-azlag2 A ----- Lu2-azlag2 B-C (segment 6)
354. lu2 ze2-a-al-ri - ? // 1. lu2 nam-ta ed2-a - ?
355. lu2 eme-sig-gu7-gu7 (Denouncer) // 2. lu2# ze2#-a# al#-ra# - ? (same as line 354 A)
356. lu2 gidim-ma# (Necromancer) // 3. lu2# gidim#-ma# (Necromancer)
357. lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga# (Necromancer) // 4. lu2#-saĝ#-bulug!?-ga!? (Necromancer)
358. lu2-saĝ-še3-nu2-a (Interpreter) // 5. lusaĝšenua (Interpreter)
359. lu2 ĝissu e3#-[de3] - ? // 6. lu2# ĝissu# ed2#-de3# -?
360. lu2 inim#-[ma] (Witness) // 7. lu2 inim-ma - (Witness)
-[INTERPRETER] (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. lu2-saĝ-še3-nu2-a "interpreter" [ePSD] -nam-lú-inim-ma: the act of witnessing (abstract prefix + 'witness'). [Halloran] -emesiggugu [DENOUNCER] (3x: Old Babylonian) wr. eme-sig-gu7-gu7; lu2me-sig; lu2eme-sig-gu7 [ePSD]
Here is a brief explanation of the above two lexical occurrence's for the Sumerian word lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga (necromancer) and lu2-gidim-ma (necromancer): According to the DCCLT, lexical lists had by the Old Babylonian period come to assume the role of a well structured "curriculum in which the subjects of cuneiform writing and Sumerian language were taught step by step." Lexical material of this period is divided into sign-lists and word-lists, I believe Lu2-azlag2 is an example of a the latter - Word lists taught the proper spelling and meaning of words to the ancient student. The particular nature of this list, Lu2-azlag2, appears to be a thematic list of terms related to Man, but as the below quote points out, professions are listed elsewhere:
cuneiform.ucla.edu/dcclt/intro/ob_lu_szu.html (Jon Taylor, who composed the OB Nippur Lu for DCCLT): "OB Nippur Lu has commonly been referred to in Assyriology as "Proto-Lu." The 'proto' element of this label is misleading. It would make more sense to refer to this list as OB Lu but that label has traditionally been attached to another list; that list is referred to here as OB Lu2-azlag2. It is important to distinguish between OB Nippur Lu and the contemporary but entirely separate list, OB Lu2-azlag2. The latter is a shorter list containing exclusively terms related to "Man." While OB Nippur Lu contains professions such as "baker" or "smith," OB Lu2-azlag2 contains terms for specific activities, or referring to psychological states or medical conditions."
I would therefore say that the lu2-saĝ-bulug-ga and lu2-gidim-ma find their context on this list as terms for a specific activity.
It would be difficult to say that any of the listed specific activities, the ones Im able to find translations for, would have an explicit thematic relation, or what that relation that would be. However since at this early stage of the examination of the Sumerian necromancer Im classifying necromancy as an act of Divination (by which the attempt is made to retrieve special information from the deceased), a Necromancer would in practice witness and interpret the gidim. Still, thats just musing on logic behind the lexical list at this point. Still to come: the beginnings of what resource and commentary can be found on Mesopotamian Necromancy.
|
|
|
Post by urnammu on Aug 6, 2007 21:24:00 GMT -5
Perhaps here it would be helpful if you could define what you mean by "necromancy"-- that is, what sorts of activities are you looking for in your Mesopotamian necromancer? It seems likely that the PSD entries you're citing are mere guesses. For instance, as you note, lu2-gidim-ma has but one attestation (as far as ePSD is concerned) and "necromancer" is simply a more flowery translation of the literal "man of the 'ghost.'" But given the proverb in question, še musz5 nig2-gig lu2-gidim-ma-ka, which should probably be translated "the musz-barley is an abomination of the gidim-man," we don't really have much to work with. Is this a necromancer? How would we know, beyond the literal translation of the Sumerian?
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Aug 9, 2007 14:37:37 GMT -5
Thank you for your post, Urnammu, I could not be in more agreeance. This deftly phrases the nature of particular challenge I'd like to see overcome here. Its true outside of some lexical lists and a proverb we're a little light on the (supposed) necromantic text references at this stage of the game. However, what I have been able to dig up in this post, is a number of secondary sources which -by virtue of their brief allusions- make it clear there is some acceptance this as an aspect of Mesopotamian culture.
Some Looming Questions: 1.What Id like to know is what? (your post underscores this question perfectly). What Archaeological or Textual sources has the practice of Necromancy in Mesopotamia been established on? 2.What were some of the techniques of the Necromancer, the materials used*, what form was the co-operating ghost expected to assume. (for example was the ghost to have communicated in a dream, by symbol, or in some more direct manner.) 3.Did the lu2-gidim-ma, as a type of specialized divination expert, cater primarily to royalty as in some forms of divination? If it were a practice that extended to the commoner, would this practice overlap with whats sometimes termed ancestor worship or family religion? 4. What percieved danger did the act of retrieving information from the dead bring to the Necromancer or to the people surrouding him (in reference to Black&Green, Below)
*In the 'Taboo in Mesopotamia" thread reply#2, I have Geller making the case that the šemus-flour is the reserve of the necromancer. Besides the ongoing philological exercise with the word níĝ-gig, whats relevant here is the relation between the necromancer and the flour. (abomination or reserve)
Scholars alluding to Necromancy in Mesopotamia (what can be taken from these allusions): To help define the concept of the Mesopotamian necromancer I'll include below those brief allusions, though what Ive quoted seems brief it is in each case the total relevant commentary given by that author. Its clear to me that these allusions though useful for some description, do not for the most part produce textual sources. So Further below under 'definitive readings' Ive listed two as yet un-obtained articles specifically focused on necromancy, which I think would bring the discussion closer to the current state of ANE research on the matter.
From J.Black/A.Green "Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia"
-under divination: They say in the divination entry that in addition to Extispicy (divination from liver) lecanomancy (oil in water) and libanomancy (smoke from incense), there was Necromancy. "Necromancy (calling up spirits of the dead) was used only rarely and considered to be dangerous."
-under gidim: "Necromancy, the deliberate raising of ghosts, was known throughout Babylonia. Questions about the future could be put to a ghost raised in this was, although it was recognized that this was a very dangerous activity, since a ritual * exists to counteract the ill effects caused by practicing necromancy."
*since the book gives no identifying information, the question becomes which ritual?
From T. Abusch in "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible by Karel van der Toorn, Pieter Willem van der Horst, and Bob Becking" Entry: Etemmu. I have bullet-pointed three quotes below from various sections of the article:
- "After death, what remains is the lifeless body and some form of intangible, but visible and audible 'spirit'. The body must be buried; otherwise, the ghost will have no rest and will not find its place in the community of the dead, usually associated with the netherworld"
- "It needs always to be emphasized that Mesopotamian burial and mortuary rituals as well as beliefs about the dead are not simply an autonomous area of religious life; they also reflect social structure and psychological experience. In any case, care for the dead may provide an occasion for the maintenance of social bonds. The living and dead maintain a permanent relationship and form an ongoing community. Dead and living kin in Mesopotamia are Dependant upon each other and therefore their relationship will naturally reflect or express both hostility and love."
In some instances evil ghosts are combated with techniques such as exorcism- - "In other instances, ghosts - usually the family manes (eţem kimti) - are invoked to help the living by taking one or another form of evil down to the netherworld.* Of great interest, especially in view of the aforementioned biblical passage (and similar passages which mention the ob and yid-de oni though not the iţţim), are attempts to raise the dead for purposes of necromancy. One designation of the necromancer is mušēli eţemmi."
*This type of assistance from ghosts referred to here by Abusch, I am speculating that it is covered by J.Scurlock ""Magical Means of Dealing with Ghosts In Ancient Mesopotamia" texts 85-88 texts described as "ghost assistance prescriptions". Though conceptually similar in some regards, the act of invoking a ghost to expel evil or bring evil down to the netherworld would be more akin to exorcism, then to the act of retrieving information from the dead for purpose of divination (necromancy).
From Dina Katz 2003 'The Image of the Netherworld in Sumerian sources" pg.42
- "With the intervention of Enki, he emerges from the netherworld, either as a ghost, or more likely in a dream (see in 1.2.1/1). In the encounter with Gilgameš, Enkidu is portrayed in anthropomorphic terms (which suggests that it was most likely a dream).110. The example of Enkidu, who emerges as a result of Enki's intervention, points to necromancy. 111 Thus, necromancy was a means to raise spirits from the netherworld.
110. The description in GEN 303 of the man who went up in flames implies that the existence of the spirit depends on the preservation of the corpse. His state as shapeless smoke, as opposed to the state of a spirit, may indicate that spirits were visualized in human form, though of ethereal composition. 111. This would explain why there is no mention of a grave."
From Dennis J. McCarthy "Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice" Journal of Biblical Literature 1973 -"In any event the contrast with the Hittite practice is noticeable: Mesopotamian necromancy neglected blood and Hittite emphasized it"
Definitive readings: To proceed I think we would need to acquire and reference these sources, with particular interest to what their primary sources are given as.
Reallexikon der Assyriologie, pg. 119 under "Orakel" (or Oracle/Divination), after comments on divinatory techniques such as Extispicy, Lecanomancy, Klinomancy etc. a section on 'other technique's' is reached, the concluding line is an extremely brief "there is no evidence for the practice of necromancy." and following this statement, the reference "(Tropper 1989, 110-117)" is given. That is:
J. Tropper 1989: Nekromantie. Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (= AOAT 223).
I think this would translate: 'Necromancy. Questions to the dead in the Old Orient and in the Old Testament.' In any case based on the hint in the Reallexikon, I am supposing that Trooper was in the negative about Necromancy in Sumer/Mesopotamia.
Also there is Finkel's article on the subject, I believe its 17 pages contain the most detailed case for Necromancy available. (Anyone who types 'The Mesopotamians' into youtube.com, can see a 9:31 min. clip featuring Finkel enthusiastically handling a sheeps liver..this guy likes his divination.)
I.L Finkel 1983/84: Necromancy in Ancient Mesopotamia, AfO 29/30, 1-17
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Aug 9, 2007 17:12:49 GMT -5
Interesting stuff. Particularly the RlA entry, which is quite recent, when compared to the discussions in DDD and the little Black/Green book. I'll have to look into this, more. While the dead certainly had a role in Mesopotamian culture, and ghosts were a part of it. (I also think Katz's remark re the man who burned to death is relevant.) And just to be clear: we're going to define "necromancy" as "retrieving information from the dead for purpose of divination"? So not raising the corporeal dead, then, correct?
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Aug 12, 2007 1:09:35 GMT -5
Yes, that's definitely correct. A cursory glance at Corporal necromancy, or the physical raising of the dead, suggests this concept become evident outside of Mesopotamia, when in Christian times necromancy and black magic became somewhat entangled. Loose thematic similarity though would probably not be impossible to see in Ishtar's threat "I shall raise up the dead and they shall eat the living!" (Ishtar's Descent.)
But to be sure, the working model previewed so far, is that the role of the Mesopotamian necromancer was "retrieving information." Its interesting that some of Black and Green's comments suggest this was still considered a dangerous practice - what was the perceived danger in this information gathering? From the raised ghost itself, or perhaps some imagined exposure to evil spirits? (Ive added this as a preliminary question.) Also by inputing 'gidim-ma' into ISSL (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psd/www/ISSL-form.html for those members here who havent seen this) I get the result:
LU2 <<GIDIM>>-MA Oppenheim Dreams 223
Leading me to suspect Oppenheim may have something to say about Lu2-gidim-ma on page 223 of his "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East " (but its also possible the subject may be passed over entirely).
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Aug 13, 2007 22:36:09 GMT -5
Oh, that's right. She does threaten to raise up the dead. I think she does it in Gilgamesh, too, when she wants to punish Gil for rejecting her, and she wants her father to do something, or she'll throw a tantrum.
Anyhow, Mesopotamia was big into divination, so perhaps getting other-wordly information from non-divine sources like spirits was a no-no? I ask that knowing nothing on the topic at all. Unfortunately, we have so few attestations-- particularly, it seems, for the early periods-- that it's hard to make sense of it one way or another. The AfO article seems like the best place to start. It's a) pretty recent (in Assyriology, 20 years is recent), and b) in English.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Aug 17, 2007 1:56:14 GMT -5
Good observation there as far as the source of information being non-divine in origin, something that distinguish's necromancy. I feel that same way about Divination, and have alot to explore about it personally. Id love to see exploration of Divination as a sub-section here at Enenuru someday.
While we await the arrival of the 'genuine article', hopefully a short-term acquisition, I have an additional hint, this one again from Abusch. In his book "Mesopotamian Witchcraft' (a masterpiece I have borrowed as of the present), the Maqlu ceremony is studied, the purpose of this ceremony can be summed "to judge, punish, and expel all witchs." In a section entitled "The Socio-Religious Framework pt.II" the author explains some of the context and procedure by which the 'speaker' or plaintiff would present his case against the offender (the witch.) The speaker would peruse a number of the opening incantations in the Maqlu ceremony to ensure that no one (divine or otherwise) would hear the 'evil mouth' (the witch's words.) To that end in one of the incantations the speaker makes a request to Bēlet-sēri, who is here understood as guarding ("at least figurativly") the entrance to the netherword:
Place locks on the mouth of my warlock and witch, Place the sealing of the sage of the gods, Marduk, When they call to you, do not answer them, When they speak to you, do not listen to them, When I call to you, answer me. When I speak to you, listen to me. By the command of Anu, Antu, and Bēlet-sēri.
Commenting on this, Abusch says "Like the necromancer (37), who calls to the dead for information, so too both the messanger [speaker] and the witches will call to Belet-seri in the netherworld for a responce." Note 37 reads: "That our incantation draws upon necromancy ceremonies, I infer from similarities between this incantatation and several of those edited by I.L.Finkel, AfO 29 (1983) 1-17. Compare the sequence šasû-apālu "to call, to answer" in lines 56 and 58 with I.:L Finkel ibid, 8-13' ([(xx)] tašassima ippalka) and p.9, ii 4'-5' and 10'." So, it would appear the 'genuine article' does indeed offer some primary sources, some textual sources for necromancy, at least apparently some incantations containing words to the effect of "to call, to answer" and understood as 'necromantic ceremony.'
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Aug 17, 2007 19:20:07 GMT -5
I actually skimmed the article yesterday. I am way out of my league as far as these texts go, but yes, the actual article does present an edition of some texts dealing (?) with necromancy. When I have more time, I'll photocopy it and give it a bit more treatment...
**Admin: Perfect, resourceful. At least a month before Ill personally be holding the same, if then. Difficult texts, Difficult subject. Makes it all the more compelling to see what picture of necromancy we can frame here.
|
|
|
Post by cynsanity on Aug 26, 2007 17:41:20 GMT -5
If it doesn't matter for me not posting any definite source yet, I have an article lying around by Tropper about the question of Necromancy in Gilgamesh XII... I'd have to translate that to English first. Also, I distinctly remember one of the red AOAT books in our library that dealt exclusively with Necromancy in the ANE... ... will check it out, promise.
|
|
david
dubĝal (scribes assistent)
Posts: 43
|
Post by david on Sept 7, 2007 18:48:26 GMT -5
If it doesn't matter for me not posting any definite source yet, I have an article lying around by Tropper about the question of Necromancy in Gilgamesh XII... I'd have to translate that to English first. Also, I distinctly remember one of the red AOAT books in our library that dealt exclusively with Necromancy in the ANE... ... will check it out, promise. If it's not too much trouble, do you think when you've translated that article, you could send me a copy, as I'm quite interested in necromancy in Mesopotamia (and other forms of magic practiced). Also, what's the title of that book, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cynsanity on Sept 13, 2007 12:37:00 GMT -5
No problem - I can give you the title as soon as I get back to uni on Monday, and will try my best at translating the article
|
|
|
Post by cynsanity on Sept 13, 2007 12:57:57 GMT -5
Sorry for the double posting, but I just remembered that I have some notes lying around from a lecture by A. Zgoll about the netherworld, ghosts and necromancy that she held at our university. Bill, kick me with some IMs or emails to make me remember that I should look for them and write them down here in English.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Oct 4, 2007 20:10:19 GMT -5
In this post Ive sampled J. Scurlocks "Magical Means of dealing with Ghosts", which contains the most meaningful commentary on Mesopotamian Necromancy (late) that Ive yet seen, it draws closely on Finkel as well I believe. Thanks so much to Amarsin for his assistance here - we now have a real look at the actual practice! I was originally going to sum, but the comments are fairly short and every word is important. Also Scurlock included the Necromantic incantations from Finkel I believe, I will add a few selections below shortly. This post should further the interest in Finkel and Trooper.
Preliminary comments about Scurlock on Necromancy:
- Month of Abu: Cohen 1993 pg.463 notes this month is a time for festivals of the dead. when both benign and malevolent ghosts from the netherworld joined the living, and the protect from the evil spirits "the ries called Maqlû, "burning" were practiced during this month". These rites were recited at the time of the disappearance of the moon, an ominous event, completely in keeping "as the time of the month when evil spirits were most likely to cause trouble." Scurlocks work below may then reference those cases of benign ghosts during this month. - That below Samaš is mentioned as the 'opener of darkness' in a Necromantic spell, may seem to have a conceptual echo of the earlier Sumerian instance of (Utu's son) Sisig, who is called the one who brings light to dark place's in during the festival of ghosts (Death of Gilgamesh), Sisig may also be present in Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld during the raising of Enkidu's spirit - which Katz (2003) interprets as a possible act of Necromancy. - Its interesting to learn some Necromantic spells reference Enmešarra as a primordial netherworld deity, we may not learn anything new about this deity but nonetheless its valuable to broaden sources on him.
J. Scurlock, Magical Means of dealing with Ghosts, 1988 p.103 - Necromancy
"The purpose of necromancy texts was to get an interview with a ghost or a namtaru and to get him to answer the questions put by the practitioner. The rituals of necromancy prescriptions are in some ways similar to those of ghost expulsion prescriptions, necromancy perceptions took some time to prepare, and might involve the practitioner in an overnight wait. The date of performance was usually not specified but when it was, the choice might fall on the twenty-ninth of Abu, presumably since the "day "when the ghosts are provided with food offerings" was as convenient a time for this sort of activity as it was for expulsions. As in ghost expulsion texts, reed alters were set up on which were laid out food offerings; alternatively, food might be scattered on the ground. The setting up of jars with drink for the gods is also attested, as is the libation of beer and wine. In Necromancy, however, unlike the ghost expulsion text, there was usually only one participant, addressed as "you." Also certain gods, such as the Anunnaki and Pabilsag are appealed to with offerings in necromancy texts, but not in ghost expulsion texts. As in ghost expulsion prescriptions, dates and sasqû-flour might be scattered, but figs, grapes, honey, ghee and pressed out oil might also be included. As yet attested only in necromancy texts is the custom of providing a water basin for hand washing for the gods' convenience. Finally, censers of burning juniper appear in necromancy texts as elsewhere, but with unusual additions. In necromancy texts, the central rite normally involved the preparation of magic ointments made with special plants or other ingredients which were smeared on the necromancer's face in order to make the ghost visible to him so that he could converse with it. Magical salves were also smeared on figurines of the ghost or namtaru or on the skull which housed him in order to keep him under control. If the ointments failed in this rather dangerous pursuit, the solution was to perform a NAM.BUR2.BI. Like the incantations of the ghost expulsion texts, necromancy incantations were recited three or seven times over the most important part of the ritual paraphernalia-- in this case the oil-base mixture before its use. In some cases, these incantations were mere nonsense spells, but in at least one an appeal is made to the principal god of ghost expulsion prescriptions: "Samaš, opener of the darknes." Peculiar to these spells, however, are references to the primordial deities of the underworld.[1] The "prince of Egišnugal" is once mentioned as mythic discoverer of the magical properties of a plant used in necromancy. One can only speculate as to why he was present in the latter text-- perhaps the magic was gathered at night. A certain amount of insecurity sometimes accompanies these incantations: "lord of the lands, angry king, king of justice--What have I done wrong that you have turned (me) to clay?"; "you, see it, and calm this one, his heart." Less is said in necromancy incantations by way of introduction than is the case in ghost expulsion spells. The ghost being called up is usually not described in any detail, and then only in terms of the necromancer's desire to know what he has conjured up: "Who are you? Who are you [You who s]urely seek out sweet life--[evi]l [utukku-demon] evil šēdi,* evil ghost, evil gallu-demon." As might be expected from the labels, the incantations of necromancy texts were concerned with having the ghost or namtaru become visible and talk without being able to harm the necromancer. The close associations of incantation and accompanying ritual might sometimes be reflected in the ritual as in the ghost expulsion prescriptions: "dust of the earth... let it (the dust) br[ing] up for me a ghost from the darkness. L[et] the tendons [bring] the dead [to life for me]. Skull of skulls, I cal[l to you]. May he who is within the skull answer [me], Samaš, opener of the darknes. On the other hand, the incantations do not explicitly describe the smearing on of the magic ointment."
[1] Scurlocks notes here that some of the Necromancy spells refer to Enmešarra and Ninmešarra "father and mother of all the gods" in addition to others.
|
|
|
Post by amarsin on Oct 5, 2007 14:42:58 GMT -5
Just as an aside (but more relevant for the sisig thread, it has more recently been argued that Enkidu returns in Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld not as a spirit or ghost, but as the real deal. So in that case, necromancy wouldnt be involved...
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Oct 23, 2007 20:55:32 GMT -5
A little late, but Ive added below 3 Necromantic texts found Scurlocks "Magical Means of Dealing with Ghosts." All would seem to date to later periods, of the 7 made availble these are the 3 I found most interesting-
Prescription 74 (pg.322):
1. ... 2. ... dust of the earth/netherworld ... 3. let it (the dust) br[ing] up a ghost to me from the darkness. L[et] the tendons [bring] the dead [to life for me]. 4. Skull of skulls, I cal[l to you]. 5. May he who is within the skull answer [me], 6. Samaš, opener of the darknes[s." (Incantation)] 7. Its ritual: a male and a female shelduck, dust from crossroads, dust of a centip[ede], 8. (wild) sow of the steppe, (and) an upturned potsherd from a crossroads, in puru-oil [(you crush?)]. 9. You mix (them) together; you leave (it) out overnight. In the morning, either (a figure of) the ghost or the nam[taru] 10. or a skull you rub (with it) and then you can call to him and he will answ[er you].
Prescription 79 (pg.331)
1. ... root, [m]int, 2. ankinūtu-plant, midrib(?) of a datepalm frond, root of 3. lipāru-shrub, cornel cherry root, oak root-- 4. these seven plants you mix together (and) 5. put into cypress oil. You say as follows: 6. Incantation: "Let the namtaru speak. 7. (that) his namtaru is speaking; (that) his namtaru is paralyzed (i.e. harmless to the necromancer) 8. together, the gods, 9. with Namtar and Girra are the ones who make it so." 10. You recite this incantation seven times over the oil. On the (figurine of the) namtaru 11. you rub (it) and then whatever and however much you ask him, he will tell you.
Prescription 82: (pg.337) (in part)
44. Incantation: "Enmešarra, Ninmešarra, 45. father and mother of all the gods; 46. Endašurimma, Nindašurimma, 47. brother and sister of all the gods; 48. lord of lands, angry king, king of justice-- 49. What have I done wrong that you turned (me) to clay? 50. I, his great gods, have done this. 51. You, see it, and calm this one, his heart 52. (Sin), [pri]nce of the Egišnugal, 53. goes up the mountain, comes down the mountain. 54. They tore out the rue(?) plant by its roots and 55. he crushed (it) ... and (on) his face, 56. he rubbed (it), and the gods, his brothers, <saw him>. 57. In response (?), they tell him (these) words: <'Assemble him (the ghost) with them (the Anunnaki) and he will tell u:> 58. "Bring me your decision (to be made). <[Af]terwards, they assembled him (the ghost). [He rubbed] a sūtu-measure of oil over [his] fa[ce] ... 59. Incantation (to be used when you wish) to see a ghost in order to make a decision.
|
|
|
Post by saharda on Nov 2, 2007 14:30:04 GMT -5
Just as an aside (but more relevant for the sisig thread, it has more recently been argued that Enkidu returns in Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld not as a spirit or ghost, but as the real deal. So in that case, necromancy wouldnt be involved... I had read the same thing. The way that the passage is worded is somewhat unclear and the fact that we don't have more Sumerian gilgamesh myths is a shame. Having a mention of Enkidu later in the life of Gilgamesh might have been instructive.
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jan 30, 2008 15:07:16 GMT -5
Reviewing: "Necromancy In Ancient Mesopotamia" AfO 29/30 Irving L. Finkel Descriptions After an eternity, I have laid hands on this article. The above thread should lend some context to this particular line of inquiry, and so I will sum just the essential presentations of this article and those comments which further the discussion. Finkel presents for the first time in this article, two tablets which - unlike most evidence previously considered - not only hint of the existence of the practice of Necromancy, but contain moreover texts specific to that practice. The first tablet delt with is- BM 36703: col. i ( text given below) This tablet originally contained two columns and although there is some damage, Finkel is able to describe the contents of the entire tablet and translates sections. Lines 1-13 col.i, contain necromantic ritual including two incantations, 14-17 a short exorcistic incantation most likely a safety precaution in the event the wrong entity is summoned. The remaining lines in column one, fragmented, contain a ritual to address the eventuality that earlier procedures prove ineffective. col.ii - ( text given below) Finkel: "The clear necromantic material comes in the obverse column ii. lines 1'-6' contain the end of an Akkadian incantation addressed to Šamaš with the intention that he, Šamaš, summon a <<ghost from (lit. of) the darkness>> (eţemmi eţūti). This ghost, once brought up from its place of rest, is then supposed to enter into a skull placed there for that purpose. The reciter of the incantation says: <<I call [upon you], O skull of skulls: may he who is within the skull answer me!>> There then follows, in lines 7' - 10', a magical ritual that involves an oily preperation of animal parts being mixed up and left to stand overnight. It is then used to anoint <<either ( lu) the ghost ( eţemmu)m or the Nam. [...], or the skull>>. At this point <<you call upon him, and he will answer you>> (tašassišuma ippalka). In this contact the word eţemmu no doubt refers to a representation of the ghost, and the ritual would have had the same effect whether applied to this representation, to the NAM.[...], or to the skull itself. It is not certain whether all three elements were necessary. The idea, however, is quite clear. It is, quite appropriately, Šamaš who has the power and authority to bring up (šūlû) a ghost from the Underworld, and the whole operation is put under his auspices. Somehow the ghost will enter into the skull, and answer questions put to him." Finkel further details that both BM 36703, and the second tablet dealt with K 2779, contain in their ritual instructions the directive than an elaborate concoction be produced over which an incantation is to be recited three time, it is than applied as an ointment to the necromancer's eyes and according to BM 36703 <<you will see the ghost, he will [speak(?)] with you; you can look (at the ghost), he will [talk] to you>>. K 2779 Its explain that the omen series Šumma Alu, indicates that in Mesopotamia, disaster and usually death were expected to follow contact with a ghost. And so while the first 9 lines of K 2779 contain similar necromantic ritual content as BM 36703, it is not surprising to find that lines 10-18 contain incantation and ritual <<to avert the evil (inherent) in the crying of a ghost>> - "thus the very process described in lines 1-9 of summoning a ghost with the deliberate intention of provoking speech from it could be fatally charged, unless steps were taken to remove the danger that would automatically be incurred." Text from BM36703
col. i lines 1-26 1' [........].. 2' [........].. you take, 3' [.......] roaming, 4' [.......] he should grind up lentil floor 5' [......] before the AB star, the brink ...,, 6' [.......] the <<claw>> of the table .[.]., 7' [......] you set up a censer with juniper, 8' [...............].. juniper in sulphur 9' [............].; you recite this incantation as follows: 10' [....] this [...] you crush in ..., kalû mineral, (and) blood of a kušû, 11' [......], and seven times you recite this incantation over that oil; 12' [(...)] you anoint your eyes before Šamaš, and 13' [when(?)] you call (to him) he will answer you.
14' Incantation. Who are you? Who are you? 15' You who always seek out the good throat/life, 16' [(Whether)] evil [spirit}, evil šēdu, evil ghost, evil demon 17' [......]s, O evil ghost, .... O evil ghost!
18' [If(?) .......].. will not answer you 19' [............. will] not ? answer you ..... 20' [You recite the incantation(?) ..] the great [...]; DITTO. 21' [Its ritual; ........]... excrement of a wild ox, 22' [.....................]... of a bear. 23' [..........................]... 24' [..........................]... 25' [..........................] you set up; 26' [..........................] .. obv. ii - Finkels version Prescription 74, (given above)1. ... 2. ... dust of the earth/netherworld ... 3. May he bring up a ghost from the darkness for me! May he [put life back(?)] into the dead man's limbs! 4. I call [upon you], O skull of skulls: 5. May he who is within the skull answer [me!], 6. O Samaš, who brings light in (lit. who opens) the darkne[ss! (EN2)]
7. Its ritual: you crush(?) a male and female partridge(?), dust from a crossroads, 'dust' of a jumping crikcket (?) of 8. the steppe, (and) an upturned potsherd from a crossroads in pūru oil, [(...)]: 9. You mix it all together and leave it to stand overnight. In the morning you anoint either the eţemmu (figure), and/or the NAM.[...], 10. and/or the skull, and when you call upon him he will answer you.
Jewish Parallels for the Necromantic use of the Skull Finkel: "Perhaps the most remarkable element revealed in these necromantic texts is the use of a skull to house the conjured ghost and furnish him with the mechanical means for communication." The author lists some other attestable uses of the skull in Mesopotamia: - as a magic ingredient to be ground up with other materia medica. - in LKA 84, the skull of a dog is used to pour a libation to dispel a ghost. - in Maqlu IV 18 the witch is accused of an act of black magic "you have handed me over to a skull." - The use of the skull is also attestable in some exorcistic material, as in KAR 227 a tablet containing instructions that the haunted person, the sufferer, is to recite such and such an incantation "before a skull." In this case the intent is the exorcism or removal of a haunting ghost, and so the opposite intent of a necromantic rite. Finkel remarks "in summary, it may be remarked that the use of a skull as a vehicle for communication with ghosts, whether to summon them or dispel them, is a logical one." He sees an illuminating parallel from Jewish sources, and lists specifically a passage from the Mishnah (400 B.C), the Tractate Sanhedrin VII 7 reads <<He that has a familiar spirit (such is the Python which speaks from his armpits) and the soothsayer (such as he that speaks from his mouth), these are [to be put to death[ by stoning.>> If this seems confusing, it turns out two types of Necromancer are referred to here, as is clarified in the Babylonian talmud which explains the above passage and gives a description of the two types of necromancer stating: "Our Rabbis taught: Ba'al'ob* denotes both him who conjures up the dead by means of soothsaying, and one who consults a skull." * character unavailable Finally, Finkel references a medieval Jewish commentary, in this case the Mishnaic commentary composed by Bat-tenura: <<He takes the skull of a dead person after the flesh has decomposed, and he offers incense to it, and aks of it the future, and it answers>>. Scattered references to Necromancy in the Old Testament (Deut. 18:11, Lev. 19:31,30: 6-7, 1 Samuel 18, indicated that while the practice was "officially frowned upon" it was known and practiced by the Hebrews. The article concludes: "Certainly there is ample documentation from Greek sources, and its existence among Hellenistic and later Jewish and other magical sources meant that it grew to become a staple of the medieval grimoire, and activity that has persisted to the present day, but it seems possible on present evidence that necromancy is to be listed among those elements of civilized behavior for which we are ultimately indebted to Mesopotamia."
|
|
|
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Jan 30, 2008 15:16:40 GMT -5
I feel the above post has satisfactorily addressed 3 of the 4 original questions orginally asked about Mesopotamian Necromancy, and have indicated answered questions in teal color.
1.What Id like to know is what? (your post underscores this question perfectly). What Archaeological or Textual sources has the practice of Necromancy in Mesopotamia been established on? 2.What were some of the techniques of the Necromancer, the materials used*, what form was the co-operating ghost expected to assume. (for example was the ghost to have communicated in a dream, by symbol, or in some more direct manner.) 3.Did the lu2-gidim-ma, as a type of specialized divination expert, cater primarily to royalty as in some forms of divination? If it were a practice that extended to the commoner, would this practice overlap with whats sometimes termed ancestor worship or family religion? 4. What percieved danger did the act of retrieving information from the dead bring to the Necromancer or to the people surrouding him (in reference to Black&Green, Below
|
|
|
Post by muska on Mar 30, 2011 10:59:25 GMT -5
I found a reference about marriage of living person with the dead one in G. Leick s Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature (1994). This was believed to have been ritually engineered by a witch who would make a figurine of her victim and place this effigy in the lap of a corpse in a symbolic sexual union. As a result, the bewitched person was united with the etemmu, the spirit of this dead man and woman, a union which would eventually end in her or his own death. There are rituals to deal with some situations, involving a kind of (wedding) banquet for the spirit and his family. Leick refers to: Abusch, T. ‘The Demonic Image of the Witch in Standard Babylonian Literature’, in Neusner, J. Religion, Science and Magic (Oxford, New York), 1989: P. 31 and Oberhuber, K., Die Kultur das Alten Orients (Frankfurt am Main). 1972. P.81 It seems very interesting in comparison with some folklore and literature motifs (marriage with a dead person, burying a photography of the victim in a grave etc.).
|
|