No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Manipulating incantation texts: Excursions in Refrain A*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
Extract
On 9 October 1851 the British Museum purchased eight incantation bowls from Col. Henry Rawlinson. Of these, seven were written in Aramaic. They were recorded by the Minutes of the Trustees of the British Museum as coming from “a tomb at Babylon”, per se a most unusual provenance since incantation bowls are usually associated with domestic loci. The seven incantation bowls all name the same male client, one Mahperoz son of Hindo. Palaeographic studies on the typical Babylonian Aramaic script in which they were written reveal that they were the product of the same hand. The physical typology of the incantation bowls (hemispherical in form with simple rims measuring 0.6 cm thick and shaved bases) suggests that all seven were selected from the same workshop, and possibly even from the same batch of pottery. In such a situation, where the incantation bowls clearly form a group and were written for a single client, one might expect the texts to be duplicates.
Four of the seven bowls purchased from Rawlinson were inscribed with a common incantation text that Ben Segal has designated as Refrain A. This commences with a distinctive call for the overthrow of the world and heavenly order as well as the reversal of female cursers. Over the past one hundred and fifty years a dozen examples of this text have have come to light in a variety of international museums and private collections. The largest group is that of the British Museum which has no less than eight examples, including the four Rawlinson bowls as well as a small flat-bottomed stopper that Hormuzd Rassam obtained from Sippar during the excavations which the British Museum conducted at that site between 1881 and 1882. The remaining four examples of Refrain A are in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and in collections of antiquities that are owned by the Churchs' Ministry amongst the Jewish People, St Albans, England, and Near Eastern Fine Arts, New York, U.S.A.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 2002
Footnotes
*
The author thanks the British School of Archaeology in Iraq for financial assistance that enabled her to study IM 9726 at the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. She would also like to thank Dr Mu'ayyid Sa'id Damerji, formerly Director-General of the State Organization for Culture and Heritage, Republic of Iraq, for his generous assistance. She would also thank Dr John Curtis, Dr St John Simpson and Dr Irving Finkel of the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, British Museum for their assistance during her researches. Thanks are also due to Mr James Stedeford, of the Churchs' Ministry amongst the Jewish People, for enabling the Pearson bowl to be examined and photographed.
References
1 British Museum, Trustees Minutes 1848–52, 362–3.
2 BMR 91716, BMR 91719, BMR 91720, BMR 91721, BMR 91726, BMR 91727, BMR 91756. In this paper incantation bowls belonging to the group purchased from Rawlinson are denoted by the siglum BMR.
3 Layard, A. H., Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (2 vols.; London, 1853) 509 Google Scholar appears to have been misinformed when he stated that the eight specimens were “obtained at Baghdad, where they are sometimes offered for sale by the Arabs; but it is not known from what sites they were brought.”
4 The name Mahperoz includes an epithet of several Sasanian monarchs and points to the infiltration of Persian nomenclature amongst the Aramaic-speaking citizens of Babylon.
5 For discussion of the physical typology of incantation bowls, see Hunter, Erica C. D., “The typology of the incantation bowls: physical features and decorative aspects” in Segal, J. B., with a contribution by Hunter, Erica C. D., Catalogue of Aramaic and Mandate Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London, 2000) 163–88Google Scholar, specifically 165–8.
6 Segal, op. cit., 22.
7 These are BMR 91716, BMR 91720, BMR 91721 and BMR 91727.
8 BM 91713, BMR 91716, BMR 91720, BMR 91721, BMR 91727, BM 91745, BM 91758 and BM 117883.
9 For further details about BM 117883 and the excavations at Sippar see Hunter in Segal, op. cit., 164.
10 See Hunter, Erica C. D., “Two incantation bowls from Babylon”, Iraq 62 (2000) 139–47 for IM 9726CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 See Naveh, Joseph and Shaked, Shaul, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations from Late Antiquity (Leiden, 1985) 134–45Google Scholar.
12 This incantation bowl is termed the “Pearson bowl” in the discussion. It was originally published by Geller, Markham, “Eight incantation bowls”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 17 (1986) 101–5Google Scholar, and has been republished by Hunter, op. cit.
13 Yamauchi, Edwin, “Aramaic magic bowls”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 85 (1965) 514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes that it belonged to Mr E. Safani of Near Eastern Fine Arts, New York. In the discussion this incantation bowl is termed the “Safani bowl”.
14 Layard, , Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, 514–19Google Scholar for Texts II (BMR 91716) and III (BMR 91720).
15 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 136.
16 The parallel texts from the British Museum, together with an updated publication history are: (i) BM 91745 (005A in Segal, op. cit.), 4–5 first published by Schwab, Moïse, “Deux vases judéo-babyloniens”, Revue asiatique 2 (1892) 139–42Google Scholar (Text G). Excerpts of this text were included during the survey of the British Museum collection by Gordon, op. cit., 339 where it is listed under the incorrect registration of No. 19745; (ii) BMR 91720 (007A in Segal, op. cit.), 7–9 which was originally published by Thomas Ellis as Text 2 in Layard, op. cit., 438–40, (iii) BMR 91727 (009A in Segal, op. cit.), 9–11 has been the subject of four translations. It was first published by Thomas Ellis as Text 3 in Layard, op. cit., 440–1, re-edited in 1890 by Schwab, Moïse, “Les coupes magiques et l'hydromancie dans l'antiquité orientale”, Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, 04 1890, 306–10Google Scholar (Text B), then by Jeruzalmi, Isak in his unpublished doctoral thesis, “Les coupes magiques araméennes de Mésopotamie” (University of Paris, 1963) 52–63 Google Scholar and finally by Isbell, Charles, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (Missoula, 1975) 131–2 (Text 58)Google Scholar.
17 Gordon, Cyrus, “Aramaic incantation bowls”, Orientalia 10 (1941) 348 Google Scholar.
18 BM91713, BMR 91721, BM 91758 and BM 117883.
19 Geller, op. cit., 104 acknowledged Naveh and Shaked's collation, to which he added the Pearson bowl, but made no changes to the schema.
20 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 137.
21 Naveh and Shaked, loc. cit.
22 Segal, op. cit., 153–5. He did not include IM 9726 in his collation of Refrain A, since the complete text was not at his disposal.
23 For the British Museum's incantation bowls consult Segal, op. cit., 43–54; for AMB B2 see Naveh and Shaked, op. cit. (n. 11); for the Pearson bowl and IM 9726 see Geller, op. cit. (n. 12) and Hunter, op. cit. (n. 10); for the Safani bowl see Yamauchi, op. cit. (n. 13).
24 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 137.
25 Gordon, Cyrus H., “The Aramaic incantation bowls in historic perspective” in Fishbane, M. and Brettler, M., Minhah le Nahum. Biblical and other Studies Presented to Nahum B. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday (Sheffield, c1993) 142 Google Scholar. See Hunter, Erica C. D., “Saints in Syriac anathemas: a form-critical analysis of role”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 37: 1 (1987) 83–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for discussion of form-critical elements in amulets.
26 hpyk' kl myly “upset all the words” in Yamauchi, op. cit., 515 might be read as “planets”. Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 138 also suggest this reading.
27 Segal, op. cit., 43 notes that this was a misreading of šwqy “markets”. Naveh and Shaked, loc. cit., suggest that šyq' “goblin” is a corruption šmy' “heavens”, presumably on the basis of the expected sequence of Formula I(b). Geller, op. cit., 104 makes no comment other than noting the occurrence of this word in Montgomery (who translates it as “goblin”) and stating that šyq' and šyd' are synonymous terms for “demon”.
28 Naveh and Shaked, loc. cit., justify their reading of š‘t’ “hour” in AMB B2 as “talk”, but miss the point that Formula I(b) is a concatenation of astrological phenomena, in which “fate of all mankind” is entirely fitting. BMR 91716 prefaces Formula I(a) + I(c) with a phrase (11. 17–19) dkl bny {'ynš} 'ynš “of all humankind” but there is a lacuna in the text beforehand.
29 Yamauchi, op. cit., 51 mentions the Maqlû series, referring to Tallqvist, K. L., Die assyrische Beschwörungen Maqlû (Leipzig, 1895) 17 Google Scholar.
30 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 137 note the elision of an initial alef following a prefixed element. See Jusoola, Hannu, Linguistic Peculiarities in the Aramaic Magic Bowl Texts (Helsinki, 1999) 34 Google Scholar for further examples of the omission of alef in AMB B2.
31 BM 91713, BM 91758, AMB B2: 3m. pl. present participle qymyn, Safani bowl, Pearson bowl, BM 91745 and IM 9726: f. s. participle qym'. IM 9726 has the orthographic variant qyym' and the Rawlinson group writes qmh.
32 Segal, op. cit., 45 has read this word as “lintel”.
33 Yamauchi, op. cit., 514–15. Cf. BMR 917271. 7: w'r “‘tqwpt(h lyšr’ … “and the earth is powerful …”
34 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 137.
35 Segal, op. cit., 43 comments that this name is a variant of the familiar Bethel and pointing out that Yequtiel is cited in I Chronicles IV. 18.
36
Yamauchi, op. cit., 519 suggests that the name of the angel Ṭashniel is related to the root 
“to hide, protect”. Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 139 read šdyhy'l.
37 For corrections to Geller's reading see Hunter, op. cit., 144.
38 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 140 suggest the latter text be corrected to yy rbh.
39 See Yamauchi, 10c. cit., for Yorba in Mandaean literature.
40 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 139–40.
41 Cf. Segal, op. cit., 45.
42 Lists of multiple names are common in amulets and incantations. Cf. Syriac anathema of Mar ‘Abdisho where the demoness has twelve names. See Hunter, Erica C. D., “Saints in Syriac anathemas: a form-critical analysis of role”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 37: 1 (1987) 83–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Note the oscillation between Semkath and Sin/Shin in ḥd 'sr.
44 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit, 140.
45 See Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 141 for a tabulation of names in the collated texts.
46 Segal, op. cit., 43 where he also suggests that psps is the alphabetic reversal for whwh, a by-form of the ineffable Name.
47 IM 9726, written for 'ḤBTY daughter of MḤLPT', states: 'wpykh lwṭt' d'ym wbt'ym'w “overturned is the curse of the mother and the daughter”. The Pearson bowl, written for Yezid Gušnas, offers the interesting variant: wpykh lwṭt' dhnyn 'ynšh dyndr wlwṭ wšdr “overturned is the curse of these men which is vowed, cursed and bound”.
48 See Yamauchi, op. cit., 515 for hlyn šmḥt' dml'k' hdyn 'bdyn h'lyn šmrt' whty[m]yn kl šydyn wdywyn “(by) all … these names of this angel, these conjurations (by these) names (are bound). Bound and sealed are all demons and devils …”
49 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 137.
50 Ibid.
51 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 143 suggest that the word was a verb. Cf. Segal, op. cit., 44.
52 This phrase is reminiscent of a very popular Mandaic refrain. See Segal, op. cit., 123–8. IM 60494 can be added to his listing of extant examples on p. 124. For text and translation see Hunter, Erica C. D., “Who are the demons?”, Studi epigrafici e linguistici 15 (1998) 103–15Google Scholar.
53 Naveh and Shaked (b) and Segal/Hunter II.
54 Cf. 1. 6 wšdryt 'lhy ml'ky.
55 Geller's transliteration of the Pearson bowl reads nyḥt rather than wym'. On palaeographic grounds only the final Tau can be read with certainty. The first two letters which Geller has intepreted as a Nun-Yodh combination may equally be read as a Waw-Yodh combination, whilst the third letter could be a Mem. See Geller Plate IV in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. The word can also be discerned in the photograph which appeared as Plate XXVII in Pearson, facing page 83. A problem remains with the final Tau. A similar phrase occurs in BMR 917161. 11: mṣypwn' wmm‘rb’ wlṭwr mdnḥh “from the north and the west and the mountain of the east”.
56 BM 91713, BM 91758 yy wss ššš ṭymw; AMB B2 yy kyss ššš ṭymw.
57 Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; New York, 1951) 238 Google Scholar √JGYL and 1332 √QYM.
58 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 144 note that the appellation nkyr does not occur in Aramaic, and tentatively suggest a reference to the figure who became identified in Islam as the Angel of Death. A. J. Wensinck, “Munkar wa-nakīr”, Encyclopedia of Islam VII, 577 Google Scholar notes the similarity between Muslim sources with the idea of Hibbut ha-Kever (lit. the beating of the grave) that was well known in Jewish circles during late Antiquity. In the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 18b) Duma is named as the angel who punished the deceased after their burial by striking them with fiery chains.
59 Segal, op. cit., 29.
60
See
Drower, E. and Macuch, R., A Mandate Dictionary (Oxford, 1962) 301
Google Scholar entry NKR, NKRA,
Smith, R. Payne, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1902) 340
Google Scholar entry 
M. Jastrow, op. cit., 911 √NKK.
61 AMB B2 wšdrw wḥbylw yth myn ‘nyn dbr(t)’ “they sent and injured her (away) from the eyes of the daughter”.
62 See Swartz, Michael, “Scribal magic and its rhetoric: formal patterns in medieval Hebrew and Aramaic incantations texts from the Cairo Genizah”, Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990) 178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for these formulae ending prayers in the Jewish liturgy. For Mandaic bowls ending in 'mn see Yamauchi, also BM 91732 and BM 91736 published by Segal. Most Mandaic bowls end with hyy' z'kyn “Life is victorious”.
63 BM 91764 is composed entirely from this distinctive refrain.
64 For this process in incantations from the Cairo Genizah, see Swartz, op. cit., 166 where he provides the example of T-S K1.127 and T-S AS 143.487.
65 IM 9726 and the Pearson bowl write brbl “wolf” and BM 91745 krb' “cherub” instead of bwlbwl “nightingale”.
66 Yamauchi, op. cit., 514 notes that the Safani bowl came from Nehavand. However, in the absence of any archaeological context, the question of provenance remains open.
67 See Gordon, Cyrus, “Aramaic Incantation Bowls”, Orientalin NS 10 (1941) 117–19Google Scholar [Text 1] = Harvard Semitic Museum, No. 2036. Accession number 899.2.658.
68 See Alexander, Philip, “Incantations and books of magic” in Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols, revised and edited by Vermes, G., Millar, F. and Goodman, M.; Edinburgh, 1986) III:1 354 Google Scholar: “The text, which is always careful to name the client or the clients on whose behalf it was written”. Swartz, op. cit., 176–7 notes that amulets always included the client's name. For the practice in Syriac Christian amulets see Hunter, Erica C. D., “A scroll amulet from Kurdistan”, ARAM 5 (1993) 247 Google Scholar.
69 BMR 91716 and BMR 91720 have concluding statements. BMR 91721 and BMR 91727 have deteriorated at this point.
70 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 145 mention the names written on the exterior wall of the bowl, commenting that this was unusual since names were usually incorporated within the text and that the text is entirely impersonal. They have not recognised this cardinal feature of Refrain A. On pp. 134–5 they note that the copyist appears to have abandoned the first attempt to write one of the names.
71 See Hunter, op. cit. (2000), 141 for the text.
72 Segal, op. cit., 24 where he mentions specifically BM 91745.
73 The incantation text traditionally commenced at this point. For the “inner circle” see Hunter in Segal, op. cit., 171.
74 The four “Rawlinson” bowls may have been intended for the four corners of the house. See Segal, op. cit., 108–9 for BM 91709.
75 Swartz, op. cit., 167.
76 Hunter in Segal op. cit., 169.
77 Smith, Jonathon, “Trading places” in Mirecki, P. and Meyer, M. (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, 2002) 26 Google Scholar.
78 For instance the articles by Jonathan Seidel, “Charming criminals: classification of magic in the Babylonian Talmud”; Michael Swartz, “Magical piety in ancient and medieval Judaism” and Rebecca Lesses, “The adjuration of the Prince of the Presence: performance utterance in a Jewish ritual” in Mirecki and Meyer, op. cit..
79 Segal, op. cit., 25 claims that the adversaries in Aramaic texts are predominantly female since witchcraft is the occupation of women. He notes the interpolation of d'b' in BMR 91727 and suggests a later date. However, this bowl was one of the “Rawlinson” group and the interpolation was the work of the copyist. For discussion of the attitudes of the Babylonian Talmud and rabbinic sources to “women as witches” see Lesses, Rebecca, “Exe(o)rcising power: women as sorceresses, exorcists and demonesses in Babylonian Jewish society of late Antiquity”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 69 (2001) 343–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
80 Cf. Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 27.
81 Lesses, op. cit., 361.
82 Ibid., 354–9 discusses lilith/s in incantation bowls and rabbinic literature.
83 See Swartz, op. cit. (1990) for the “rhetoric” of Jewish amulets. Christian “rhetoric” is discussed by Hunter, Erica C. D., “Saints in Syriac anathemas: a form-critical analysis of role”, Journal of Semitic Studies 37: 1 (1987) 83–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Naveh and Shaked, op. cit., 36.