Notes on Two Amulets (Tyszkiewicz and de Serres) Inscribed with Sumerian Incantations

The present paper focuses on two amulets, called Tyszkiewicz (Fig. 1: 1) and de Serres (Fig. 1: 2) after their first collectors. The former was mentioned in an auction catalogue in 1898 and first published by the present authors in 2019, while the latter was published by W.G. Lambert in 1976, after which it appeared in further publications.^[1] The Tyszkiewicz amulet turned up at the auction of the Tyszkiewicz Collection held in Paris on 8–10 June 1898. It was acquired by E.P. Warren (1860–1928), who sold it to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in the same year.^[2] As regards its origin, Frœhner (1898: 82 no. 242), the author of the auction catalogue, noted that the object was “trouvée à Tell Amran (Babylonie)”; however, there is no further evidence to confirm this. The de Serres amulet, the present whereabouts of which are unknown, appeared first in the collection of Jean Mariaud de Serres (Lambert 1976: 57). There is no information available concerning its possible provenance. We would like to draw attention to the striking similarities between the two amulets in terms of their material, dimensions, shape, and the form of their inscriptions. In the following, we provide copies, transliterations, translations, and descriptions of the two amulets, and discuss their inscriptions, date and possible function.

Fig. 1

(1) Tyszkiewicz amulet (MFA 98.697, 30.3 × 19.0 × 8.0 mm. Based on Bácskay/Niederreiter2019: 176 fig. 2) and (2) de Serres amulet (31 × 20 × 8.5 mm. Based on Lambert 1976: 60 fig. 2).

Tyszkiewicz amulet (MFA 98.697)

De Serres amulet

Material: Since the two objects have not been examined through mineralogical analysis, it is impossible to verify the materials used in their production. The Tyszkiewicz amulet is described as “agate blanche” by Frœhner (1898: 82 no. 242) and as “chalcedony” in the museum documentation.^[5] Lambert (1976: 58) notes that the de Serres amulet is made of a “hardstone,” which he specifies as “chalcedony”.

Dimensions: Based on the three relevant measurements, the two amulets are almost of the same size (in millimetres):

Shape: The Tyszkiewicz amulet is shaped like a cuneiform tablet with rounded edges and is pierced longitudinally through the centre. In the case of the de Serres amulet, there is no photographic documentation of the object; only two drawings presenting its two sides (obverse and reverse) are available to us. However, these drawings show that the object is shaped like the Tyszkiewicz amulet. According to Lambert (1976: 58)’s description, the de Serres amulet “is pierced down the centre, where it is thickest (8.5 mm maximum)”, which makes it evident that, similarly to the Tyszkiewicz amulet, it is pierced longitudinally through the centre.

Function: In terms of function, the perforation running along the vertical axis of the objects makes it clear that they were designed to be hung on a string as pendants. In the absence of an archaeological context, the exact manner in which the objects were displayed remains uncertain. Taking into account their relatively small size and weight, they were presumably worn as amulets. However, it is also possible that the pendants were suspended at a particular place for which the objects were destined.

Inscription’s format: As for the arrangement of the inscriptions and the disposition of the cuneiform signs, the two objects show similar characteristics. The inscription on both amulets is organized in cases separated by rulings; on the obverse of each amulet there are ten cases, while the reverse of the Tyszkiewicz amulet counts eight cases and that of the de Serres amulet six. Given that the width of both amulets is limited, each case contains one to three lines of text. The last lines of all the cases with more than one line are justified right, except for the signs justified middle in line 8 of the de Serres amulet. Although the number of cases differs, since the inscribed texts differ, each side on each of the two objects has 13 lines (26 in all per amulet). It is probable that the closing formula was omitted on the de Serres amulet due to a lack of space. In order to read the reverse, the objects^[6] have to be turned upside down, similar to the reading of cuneiform tablets. The elaborately engraved cuneiform signs show archaic forms on both objects, which characterize the high quality of these lapidary inscriptions.

Inscription’s content:Both amulets contain Sumerian incantations, and we can observe that they have a similar structure as both incorporate a section of a ‘zi-litany.’ The Tyszkiewicz amulet bears a Kultmittelbeschwörung on a thorn bush (Sum. ^ĝeškiši₁₆, Akk. ašâgum). A short passage of a ‘zi-litany’ was inserted into the text of the incantation (lines 9–11), so that the text can be interpreted as a variant (Bácskay/Niederreiter 2019: 179).^[7] As Lambert (1976: 60) already suggested, the de Serres amulet includes an incantation mentioning “short extracts from various incantations.” Lines 1–5 provide a forerunner of the incantation series Udug-ḫul Tablet 4.^[8] Lines 2–5 describe the birth and the feeding of a demon who was born from the marriage of Heaven and the Netherworld, cared for by an evil wet-nurse. This passage is followed by lines 6–9 describing the characteristics of the demon, which can be compared to a similar passage on Udug-ḫul Tablet 5 lines 1–3. Lines 10–14, mentioning a ‘zi-litany’, provide a section from the Zi-pa₃ incantations Gattung II (Zomer 2018: 240 with footnote 1023). It is important to note that the Zi-pa₃ incantations Gattung II can also be connected to the series Udug-ḫul.^[9] The exact meaning of the remaining part of our text (lines 15–16) remains obscure in the absence of parallels.^[10]

Date:Due to the absence of archaeological data and the fact that the inscriptions were written with archaic lapidary signs, the dates of both amulets are based on orthography. In accordance with the philological evidence, we proposed that the Tyszkiewicz amulet most likely dates to the early Isin period (Bácskay/Niederreiter (2019: 177). Our argument was based on Wiggermann’s suggestion that Nergal became the ruler of the Netherworld in the southern part of Mesopotamia from the Old Babylonian period on.^[11] However, the possibility cannot be excluded that the Tyszkiewicz amulet dates to the Middle Babylonian period. Due to the use of archaic cuneiform signs, the exact date of the de Serres amulet also remained questionable for Lambert.^[12] Geller discussed this amulet among the forerunner texts of the incantation series Udug-ḫul, suggesting that it originates from the Old or the Middle Babylonian period,^[13] while Zomer more recently dated this amulet to the Middle Babylonian or Middle Assyrian period.^[14] The Middle Babylonian dating is based solely on the amulet’s connection to the Zi-pa₃ incantations Gattung II, the earliest extant tablet of which comes from this period.^[15] In sum, the two objects can be dated to the same period, but we cannot decide whether this was the Old Babylonian or the Middle Babylonian period.^[16]

Conclusion: The collection and classification of Mesopotamian amulets inscribed with incantations needs to be further pursued in Assyriological research. Moreover, their potential role in magical rituals deserves further attention.^[17] In the corpus of relevant source material, the inscribed stone amulets shaped like a cuneiform tablet and featuring a longitudinal perforation can constitute a specific group. Aside from the two objects studied here, we know of four amulets similar in shape and function and inscribed with incantations, which, however, are made of soft stone.^[18] In contrast to them, our two amulets exhibit striking resemblances in terms of their almost identical dimensions, shape, and arrangement of the inscriptions. Furthermore, their material and the execution of their inscriptions attest to their very high quality and elaborate workmanship. In sum, it is most likely that these two amulets were made in the same workshop. The longitudinal cavity of the objects and the positioning of their inscriptions suggest that they were designed to be hung on a string as pendants rather than being worn on a necklace, like beads. They also have functional similarities, given that the Sumerian incantations inscribed on these objects belong to the realm of the incantation priests (āšipūtu).^[19]