Dedicating Magic: Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figurines and the Protection of Assur

Author(s): Carolyn Nakamura

Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 36, No. 1, The Object of Dedication, (Mar., 2004), pp. 11-25
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128300
Accessed: 10/04/2008 13:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Dedicating magic: Neo-Assyrian
apotropaic figurines and the protection
of Assur

Carolyn Nakamura

Abstract

As counterpointto conventionalstudiesthat evaluateancientsystemsof magicagainstthe logic of

rationalthought,this papersituatesmagicalpracticeas a mode of knowingand producinganterior
to such logic, engaged in the reproductionof society.The discussionconvergeson Neo-Assyrian
apotropaicfigurinedeposits,which providedmagicalprotectionof a priest-houseat Assur. It is
arguedhere that apotropaicmagicengagesin a mode of secrecythat underwritesprotectivepower
in the social field. These material assemblages,as mimetic expressionsof myth and dedication,
configureprotection in a play on the public secret, the pathos of the real as really made up.
Protectivepower,therefore,emergesin this processthat compelsthe perceptionand experienceof
a transformedand protectedreality.

Keywords

Mesopotamia;Assur;magic;apotropaicfigurines;mimesis;dedication;materialpractice;produc-
tion of space.

Technologies of (re)production

Magic is a mode of relating to things in the world; and this mode, which engages materi-
ality to negotiate the human experience of transcendent powers and supernatural beings,
delineates a process of bringing forth that which is invisible, imagined and powerful into
the hard-core realm of human perception and understanding. Heidegger's analysis of the
Greek concept of techne finds particular relevance here; techne serves 'to make something
appear, within what is present, as this or that, in this way or that way', it denotes a
'producing in terms of letting appear' (Heidegger 1977a:361, emphasis added). But techne
also expresses a mode of knowing, the essence of which consists in the revealing of beings:
'to know means to have seen, in the widest sense of seeing, which means to apprehend
what is present, as such' (Heidegger 1977b: 184). Viewed as a technique or technology,

WorldArchaeology Vol. 36(1): 11-25 The Objectof Dedication

Routledge
R Francis
Taylor& Group ? 2004Taylor& FrancisLtdISSN0043-8243print/1470-1375
online
DOI: 10.1080/0043824042000192687
12 CarolynNakamura

magic belongs to both a knowing and a producingthat foregroundsmateriality.The

magical object (or substance) presents an imagined reality that is apprehended and
experienced as real. Here, magic takes advantageof the recursive exchange between
concept and experience, imagination and physical reality; its power resides in this
inherentinstabilityof sociallife,unleashedin the 'lettingappear',the bringingforthof the
invisibleinto the materialrealm.Magic,with this capacityto transformreality,serves as
an 'affective technology' (Meskell 2004) and engages in the reproductionof society.
Viewed in these terms,the material practice of magic constitutes nothing less than a
reproductivetechnology.
Dedicatorypracticejoins and often convergeswith magicunderthis concept of techne;
like magic, dedication forges and transformsnetworks of social relations, mediating
between worlds and beings, effectively reproducing society. The current discussion
explores certainmodalitiesof technein a ritualof Mesopotamianapotropaicmagic:the
strategicburialof protectivefigurinedeposits underhouse and temple floors duringthe
Neo-Assyrianperiod of ancient Iraq (c. 934-610 Bc). This practice engages magic and
dedicationto createor bringforthprotection.And it is the materialproductionof socially
powerful space and object-beingsthat achieves this goal. I consider the apotropaic
process in terms of how conceptionsof dedicationand mimesis,which trace back to the
mythic origin of humans,configuremagicalprotection.I would suggest that the deposi-
tion of these assemblagesas dedicatorycaches mimics the creation of world order and
traces out paths of magicalagencysuch that social realitybecomes transformed.What I
find compellinghere is the idea that the productionof society hinges on a maneuverof
metaphysicalproportions- the simultaneous duplication and obliteration of human
selves at their origins- and how this 'secret'convergeswith materialpracticeto form a
socially powerful reproductivetechnology.As such, magic orbits around something
anteriorto reason,a way of knowingcontingentupon a secretthat configuresthe produc-
tion of humansand theirsociety.

The secrecyof objects

Somethingwhichis involvedin the very natureof social relations,somethingwhichlies

at the heart of these relations,which is part of the groundworkof society,and which
necessarilyand continuouslyentails negative consequencesfor part of society,cannot
appearas suchin the representationsindividualsand groupsproduceof their society.
(Godelier 1999:173)

This 'something'that Godelier alludes to as a primaryconditionfor the productionand

reproductionof societyis whatTaussignamesas the 'publicsecret':thatwhichis generally
knownbut cannotbe articulated(1999:5). And this 'knowingwhatnot to know' provides
a social skill essentialto being a person,a social being,and is no less essential to society
itself (ibid.:195).The secret,more than just a thing,is a process (Canetti 1984:290; also
see Taussig1999:144), a process which permeates and configuresvarious reproductive
technologies.In greaterMesopotamia,the public secret enshroudsthe myth of human
origins:the fact thathumanscreatethe gods or beingswho 'create'humanlife and society.
 Dedicating magic 13

This imagined reality underscores a culturally mediated worldview - a secret or truth

within - that inhabits and is sustained by social practice. Materiality is key in this dialectic:
certain devoted objects confront a kind of 'hard-core' understanding of the world with the
process of public secrecy, amounting to a participation between matter and spirit, appear-
ance and essence, and ideal and real (Taussig 1999: 192). Such objects locate and present
the synthesis of that which can and cannot be expressed or represented to society (after
Godelier 1999:137); namely, the true nature of the relationship between humans and their
imaginary doubles.
Anterior to the division of mind and body, there is mimesis: the age-old and rather
profound faculty that stands somewhere at the beginning of language, the beginning of
memory and the mediation of experience in-the-world. In Mesopotamia, this mimetic
faculty merges with the public secret to reproduce and create social life; the original
substitution of gods for humans - that simultaneous duplication and effacement of human
selves at their origin - constitutes the secret whose possibility assures the possibility of
society 'because this obliterating of real humans and replacing them with imaginary
beings, this repressing beyond consciousness of the active role of man in the origins of
society ... is necessary in order to produce and reproduce society' (Godelier 1999: 137).
This social reality locates power in an ur-presence created by the miming of humans into
original being (the divine). This is Taussig's 'miming the real into being' (1993: 105-6), as
it were, writ large at the origins of human society. And this original mimesis of the self is
notable on two accounts: first, this self-miming is tantamount to self-obliteration at its
origins; second, the copy not only assumes the power of the original, but magnifies the
power of the original.
Original mimesis, therefore, accomplishes the creation of a powerful, divine super-pres-
ence through self-obliteration. By and large, humans truly believe in and experience this
divine presence and being. This fact gets at the most provocative aspect of the public
secret: that the original creation of absence - the absence of physical being (both human
and divine) - ensures, no less than produces, the presence of a powerful spiritual being that
is experienced and perceived as real. This reality of undeniable presence through absence
configures the public secret as social power; and this power emerges through a cunning
reversal: the secret as made by persons in turn becomes the secret making persons
(Taussig 1999: 121). 'It is in this surrender to the thing made, to the creation taking over
the creators, that we find the pathos of the real as really made up' (ibid.). The inviolability
of this surrender to imagined, invisible divine beings configures sacred power, since the
gods give back; they give back to humans their rules and customs as idealized and sacred
realities. In turn, humans constantly reproduce and reform these ideals through social and
material practice. It is this convergence of myth, power and materiality in public secrecy
that I take as a departure point for understanding an ancient Mesopotamian reality in
which clay figurines became magically powerful and powerfully real.

The apotropaic

In Mesopotamia, the Neo-Assyrians (c. 934-610 BC) devoted a significant amount of

thought and endeavor to their relationships with the 'first beings': the divine owners of the
14 CarolynNakamura

universe who gave them life and civilization.Not surprisingly,this primordialdebt to

imaginary,invisiblebeingsfiguredprofoundlyin how humansmade sense of their world.
A relationshipprefiguredby the obligationof service and devotion to the gods probably
providedan organizingprinciplefor myth,magic,religion,state administrationandkingly
power.Archaeologically,we can interrogatethis phenomenonthroughmaterialpractice.
The early excavations of ancient Mesopotamian cities unearthed provocative
Neo-Assyriandepositsburiedbeneathroomfloors (Plate 1):brickboxes often containing
clay figurinesportrayingmythicalbeings- gods,animalsand varioushybridtypes- found
singly,in pairs or groups of seven. Notably,ancient humansplaced these boxes under
particularareas:flankingdoorways,along walls,in corners,thresholdsand the middle of
rooms. These assemblages,found at Assur, Nimrud,Nineveh, Kish, Ur and Babylon,
conformedclosely to a practicerecordedin variousritualtexts (Gurney1935;Smith1926;
Wiggermann1992). These texts suggest that the ritual served to purify and protect
individualsand buildingsfrom disease and evil forces,and entailed a protractedseries of
elaborateceremoniesand acts performedby a trainedpractitioner.
Previousstudies of these materialsprovide detailedfigurinecatalogs(Klengel-Brandt
1968;Rittig 1977;Van Buren 1931),iconographicanalyses(Ellis 1967, 1995;Green 1983,
1986,1993-7;Wiggermann1993-7) and mythologicaland textual analyses(Wiggermann
1992). Such studies, although rigorous and thorough,fall short of doing justice to the
sophisticationof this ancient practice.Particularly,the scholarshipconspicuouslyomits
any accountof these data in terms of social practice.These apotropaicassemblagesare

Plate 1 Brick capsules in room 3 of the Haus des Beschworungspriesters (after Preusser 1954:table
28a).
 Dedicating magic 15

evocative preciselybecause they present a materialimprintof humanpracticein space

and time;moreover,ritualtexts and a substantialcorpus of researchon Mesopotamian
culturalhistorycan add considerabledepth and detail to the interpretationof this prac-
tice. Modernscholarship,therefore,needs to theorize and contextualizevariousgestures
of apotropaicpractice,drawingfrom multiple classes of data.With this goal in mind, I
revisit a case study from Assur (Andrae 1938;Klengel-Brandt1968;Preusser1954) and
considerhow apotropaicdeposits might be seen in terms of a reproductivetechnology,
negotiatinghuman-divinerelationstowardsthe localizationand productionof protected
space.

Of humanorigins:the gift that takes

The conception of world origins was debated over nearly four millennia in various
mythologies of diverse Mesopotamiancultures,peoples and polities.Although various
mythologies constantlyre-negotiatedconceptions of world order and creation,certain
ideas of humanoriginsand theirplace in the worldenduredthroughoutthe region.
One of the most prevalent ideas maintainedthroughoutthe mythic traditionis the
divine creationof humansas servantsof the gods. In most cases,the great god Ea/Enki
conceives humankindas a substituteto free the gods from havingto labor the earth for
their sustenance.TheAtrahasisepic recountsthe creationof humankindfrom a mixture
of clay of the apsu andthe blood of a slainrebel god (TabletI, 210-13). Othermythsrelate
divine human creation using only this clay (Enki and Ninmah,24-6) or blood (Enuma
elish,TabletVI, 33). These materialsof human creation are relevant to the mimesis of
protectivebeings and will be discussedlater on. But currently,I am concernedwith how
this mythologicaltheme delineatesthe creationof humankindin termsof eternalhuman
servitudeto the gods.Humansare born servants.This fact prefiguresthe cunninghuman
abilityto make demandsthroughthe dedicatorygift,the givingthat takes.The Mesopot-
amiangods are the true ownersof all thingsand possessionsin the world,includingthose
procuredfromthe earth.The divinegift of life establishesa primordialdebt,whichplaces
humansin eternal obligationto labor and provide for the gods, but, in performingthis
service,humanssimplyreturnwhat rightfullybelongs to the gods.Humanshave nothing
to give but themselves;fromthis position,they can only demand(Derrida1992:142).And
what they demand is that the gods give what they have to humans - give them the
resourcesto live, produceand thrive- but also give by takingthem,'by takingwhat they
are and by takingthem such as they are' (ibid.:144). In other words,humansas servants
(what they are) who have nothing (such as they are) demandto be taken underthe care
of the gods;this is the demandfor protection.
Episodes from the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics depict how humans are able to
negotiate protection of their precarious existence (as both useful servants and annoying
over-breeders) through unanticipated gifts of devotion. In these stories, people narrowly
survive scourges sent by the gods - first plague and then flood - with help from Ea and by
presenting offerings to win back the gods' favor. After the flood, Utanapishtim (also
known as Atrahasis), the father of the only surviving human family, presents an offering to
the mass of remorseful, heartbroken and hungry gods:
16 CarolynNakamura

Then I set out everythingin all directionsand sacrificed[a sheep].

I offered incensein front of the mountainziggurat.
Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,
and [intothe fire]underneath[or:into their bowls]I pouredreeds,cedarand myrtle.
The gods smelledthe savor,
The gods smelledthe sweet savor,
And collectedlike flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.
(Kovacs1992:102, lines 155-61)
Thissuppliant,more thanobligatory,act of offeringprovesto be a highlyeffectivemethod
of persuasion.Humans redeem their existence by fulfillingtheir original purpose:to
providegifts,dedicationand devotionto the gods.And, with these acts,humansfind they
can demandprotectionof theirexistencefrom the gods.
God-givenprotectionensuresthe reproductionof society,since the gods,those substi-
tute beings who replacehumansat their origins,'give [humans]back their own laws and
customs,but in a sacredform,idealized,transmutedinto the commongood, into a sacred
principle which brooks no argument,no opposition, which can only be the object of
unanimousconsent' (Godelier 1999:174).The process of reversalin the dedicatorygift
recalls the uncanny exchange in the secret of origins:'the creation taking over the
creators'.This process,in whichthe categoriesof having,being,giving and taking merge,
becomes a preconditionof social being (followingDerrida1992:144).The role of dedica-
tion in the public secret, therefore,produces and configuresthe nature of protection.
Techneinhabits dedication as the two-sided coin of creation/protection.Dedication
creates in the sense that it reproducesnecessary conditions of social life: the life and
essence of the divine;and it preserves (protects) in that it makes this creation actual.
Herein lies the publicsecretin the formof the gift that takes back,and whatit takes back
is power.

Dedicated mimesis

Say you the stone or wood, or silver is not yet a god? When then does he come to the
birth? See him cast, molded sculptured - not yet is he a god; see him soldered,
assembled,and set up - still not a god;see him bedizened,consecrated,worshiped;hey,
presto!He is a god - by a man'swill and the act of dedication.
(MinuciusFelix,translatedin Walkerand Dick 1999:117)
In the contextof Neo-Assyrianapotropaicmagic,dedicationengendersa protectedreality
by creatingthe presence of powerfulbeings in the materialworld;these are protective
deities and spirits that come to inhabit the world as a presence that is apprehended as real.
Neo-Assyrian magical figurines perform the fulfillment of the wish for protection. More
precisely, they manifest this wish. Dedicatory gestures, which animate this magical practice,
are not merely the obligatory acts of servants, but specific requests; they constitute the
apotropaic, 'the defense that goes on the offensive' (Derrida 1992:142). In short, dedication
takes a creative role in this context; it grounds the process that transforms matter into being.
Also essential to this transformation is the mimesis of divine creation.
 Dedicatingmagic 17

The ritual text, sep lemuttiina bit ameli parasu,'to block the entry of the enemy in
someone's house',demonstratesthe dedicatorymode that inhabitsthe entire creationof
the protective figurine,from the consecrationof the clay, dedication to the gods and
declarationof being:
Incantation:Claypit, clay pit, you are the clay pit of Anu and Enlil,
the clay pit of Ea, lord of the deep,the clay pit of the greatgods;
you have made the lord for lordship,you have made the king for kingship,
you have made the princefor futuredays;
your pieces of silverare given to you, you have receivedthem;
your gift you have received,and so, in the morningbefore Samas,I pinchoff
the clay NN son of NN; may it be profitable,may what I do prosper.

[As soon as] you have recitedthis,you shall speakbefore Samasas follows:
[statues]of Ea and Marduk,repellingthe evil ones,
[to] be placedin the house of NN son of NN [to] expel the foot of evil,
I [pinchoff] their clay before you <in> the claypit.
(Wiggermann1992:13, lines 151-61)
These instructionsrecallthe gift that takes:'yourpieces of silverare given to you ... your
gift you have received'.This consecrationof ritual materials reduplicatesthe human
obligationof givingback that which alreadybelongs to the gods;this in turn sets up the
request/demandfor power:'may it be profitable,may what I do prosper'.These instruc-
tions call for the re-enactmentof creation itself - from the utterance of words to the
pinchingoff of clay - all dedicatedto Samas,the sun god (see Black and Green 1992:54).
In this dedicated mimesis, human creation assumes the power of original creation
amountingto a demonstrationthat transformsreality (afterTaussig1993:106).The clay
becomes the clay of the deep - the originalmatterfrom which the world was created-
fashioned into a powerful being with divine or supernaturalpowers and qualities.The
thick lime plaster which coats many of the figurines,often obscuringtheir distinctive
features,may be associatedwith divinityand protection(see Mallowan1954:87). Specu-
lating further,it seems possible that this plasterrepresentsmelam,the luminous,visible
markof the supernatural.
Provocativelyhere, the spiritof supernaturalbeing comes to inhabita physicalreality
that presents a blatant sham for a double:miniatureclay figurinesdipped in thick lime
plaster.But, with mimesis,the copy need not be a 'good' or accuratecopy (Taussig1993:
13). I would suggestthat this intentionalcreationof a humblecopy constitutesa cunning
dissimulationakin to what Taussigcalls defacement,an act which produces 'violated'
representationssuch that they are no longer merely symbols,but come to life (1999:30).
The 'poor' counterfeit,like a built-inform of defacement,bringsinsides out, revealinga
powerfulpresence throughthe labor of the negative.The power of the spiritspills forth
into a controllablepresence through this very negation of the secret; the secret (the
human creationof the divine) becomes articulated,performed,exposed, as if to propel
the figurebeyondthe mere statusof 'powerfulobject'and mergeinto powerfulbeing,but
this revelationbecomes concealed immediatelyin the dedicatorygesture amountingto
the very creationof beingin thing.And the 'thingness'of being is essentialhere.Humans
18 Carolyn Nakamura

mediate their relationships between worlds and beings materially, such that this
communicationlocates and structuresa perceptiblereality.Apotropaicfigurinespresent
a palpablepresence-in-the-world,as object-beingswith the life of protectivespiritsand as
a collectivedemonstrationof a protectedreality.By bringingthe imaginaryinto the realm
of directperception,apotropaicassemblagesmime a protectedrealityinto being.

Imagesof the underworld

The demonstrationof protectioninvolves furthermimeticacts at the level of producing

protected space. By the Neo-Assyrian period, Mesopotamiansconceived of an under-
world,populatedby variousbeings,both benevolent and malevolent:deities, dead gods,
slain heroes and monsters,spiritsof dead humansand demons.Numeroussources locate
the underworldunderground,beneath the surface of the earth (Black and Green 1992:
180;Bottero 1992:273-5). Thisidea follows from a traditionalMesopotamianconception
of a verticaland bipolaruniversewhere the earth,inhabitedby living humans,separated
the Heavens from the Netherworld(Bottero 1992:273). Certainritualpracticesreinforce
this notion of an underworldlocated underground,the most obvious being the burialof
the dead in the ground,thereby effecting their passage to their proper residence in the
netherworld.
The burial of apotropaicfigurinesmay also reinforce a related conception of space.
Most of the mythologicalcreaturesand gods depicted in apotropaicfiguresdwell in the
apsu,the undergroundfreshwaterocean.The placementof these powerfulcopies under-
groundmay act to channelor enervatetheir power,as they are broughtforth to being in
their 'proper' realm. Notably, dedicatorypractices often involve burial underground.
Evidence of dedicatorycaches and foundation offerings throughoutvarious Mesopo-
tamianculturalperiods (Ellis 1968;Van Buren 1931) suggests that the gesture of burial
has certainand,perhaps,multiplemeaningsin ritualcontexts.
The placement of apotropaic figurines undergroundis also interesting from the
perspectiveof liminalspace.The surfaceof the earth acts as a boundarythat delineates
the borderbetween the underworldand the 'living'worldof humankind.Manyof the evil
forces targeted in apotropaicpractices- spirits,ghosts, gods and demons - find their
properdwellingplace in the underworld.But suchunsettledor summonedbeings are able
to leave this realmthroughcracksand holes in the earth and cause harmto humans.This
permeabilityrecallsLefebvre'snotion of visibleboundarieswhich'give rise to an appear-
ance of separationbetween spaces where in fact what exists is an ambiguouscontinuity'
(1991:87). And this continuitylocates potential;the surface of the earth, permeable to
both benevolent and malevolent beings from the underworld,presents potential for
threat and danger, but also for aid and protection. At the household scale, other liminal
boundaries include corners, walls, thresholds, doors and windows. Indeed, one ritual text
specifically designates corners, doorways, windows, roofs and attics as areas in need of
protection and purification (Wiggermann 1992: 17, lines 245-9). The door is both an
entrance and exit; it keeps in, protects, secures, but also lets pass, invites and tempts
(Bachelard 1994: 222). Similarly, corners are part walls, part door and designate spaces of
hiding, protection and immobility (ibid.: 136). Such liminal areas designate areas that are
 Dedicatingmagic 19

'in-between' or in transition at margins.As such, these areas could be regarded as

powerfulsince they locate potential.

Producingprotection

The apotropaic assemblages from Assur offer roughly 117 clay figurines,thirty-four
deposits and eight general figure types, two of which have subtypes (Figure 2; for
detailed catalog, see Klengel-Brandt 1968). The Haus des Beschworungspriesters
(Andrae 1938;Klengel-Brandt1968;Preusser1954),the best-knownexample at Assur,
provides an ideal case for theorizing the deposition patterns of Neo-Assyrian apotro-
paic figurine assemblages.This Neo-Assyrian house belonged to a priest family and
probablyaccommodateda temple school duringSargonidtimes (Weidner1937-9).The
context is particularlyremarkablegiven that it not only provides materialevidence of
the apotropaicritual,but textual evidence as well. KAR 298 (Gurney 1935;Smith 1926;
Wiggermann1992), the inventory of figures which describes the production,use and
placement of apotropaicfigurines,originates from this house along with many other
literaryand magicaltexts.A contextualanalysisof this practice,drawingupon material,
textual and mythologicaldata,will help illuminatecertainNeo-Assyrianconceptionsof
protection.
Threedifferentfigurinetypes in sixteenknowndepositsare locatedin the priesthouse:
the six-curledlahmuwith spade (TypeVIIa, Plate 2, thirteenfigurines),the bird-apkallu
with cone andbucket(TypeIa,Plate3, fifteenfigurines)andthe fish-apkallu(TypeII,Plate
4, twenty-onefigurines).The figuresstand in brickboxes made from three or four bricks
placeduprightabout35cmunderfloorlevel (Plate5). Eleven of sixteenexcavatedfigurine
depositsoccurin room 3, and have notabledepositionpatterns(Fig.1). Withinthis room,
capsules1 and 4-8 containpairs of Type Ia and VIIa;these deposits occur flankingthe
north-eastdoorway,in frontof the NW doorthreshold,in the middleof the room andin all
cornersexceptfor the west corner,whichPreussersuggestsmighthave been robbed(1954:
58). Capsules10 and 11 containTypeII in groupsof seven and fourteen,respectively;these
two deposits occur in the middle of room 3, oriented perpendicularto each other.

? !
-,-. .. .
;'. ..

10..../
3 13
,<

To
b 12 Oil
14

1;1/;

Figure1 Positionsof brickcapsules1-16 in the Haus des Beschwbirungspriesters

(afterMiglusand
Heidemann
1996:Plan132c).
20 Carolyn Nakamura

Alternatively, capsule 10 could be viewed as positioned in

front of south-east doorway, which would conform to the
KAR 298 placement of the seven fish-apkallu guarding the
entrance to the ritual chamber or bedroom (15-16). Inter-
estingly, capsules 6, 10 and 11 do not cluster in the direct
center of the room but within the path between the
north-east and south-east doorways.
Wiggermann's reading of ritual texts suggests that,
within this apotropaic ritual, the apkallu figurines act as
'purifiers and exorcists whose presence continuously
protects the inhabitants against evil influences' (1992: 96).
As such, he predicts that the apkallu figurines would be
placed in the private, more internal rooms of the house.
Furthermore, figurines of gods and monsters (Fig. 2),
whose task is to defend against demonic intruders, would

Plate 2 Six-curledlahmu,VA
4895,Ht 12.6 cm (afterPreusser
1954:table29c).

Plate 3 Bird-apkallu, VA
4890, Ht 11.9 cm (after
Preusser1954:table 29c).

be stationed in the outer entrance and at strategic points

within the house (ibid.: 97). However, the practice at
Assur does not conform to this appealing analysis.
Although, based on Preusser's assumption that the door
into courtyard 7 provides the entrance to the house
(1954: 58), room 3 appears to be a well-enclosed interior
room, the locations and types of deposits do not follow
textual prescription. The fish-apkallu deposits do occur
Plate 4 Fish-apkallu,VA 5484, exclusively in room 3 of the house, but the lahmul
Ht 11.7 cm )after Preusser1954; bird-apkallu deposits occur in interior rooms 2 and 3
table 29a).
 Dedicating magic 21

Plate5 Brickcapsule11 with fish-apkallufigurines(afterPreusser1954:table 28b).

(capsules 1-11), near the house entrance (capsule 12) and in other areas (capsules 13, 14).
Moreover, the lahmu/bird-apkallu pairing never occurs in the texts, and the identification
of lahmu as an apkallu figure is insecure, if not contentious (Ellis 1995;Wiggermann 1992:
147-52). This divergence supports Richard Ellis's suggestion that the relation between
apotropaic theory and practice at this time engendered a creative intellectual endeavor,
one that could compensate for the uncertainty, vagueness and disagreement that charac-
terized the process (1995: 164-5).
The histories and identities of apotropaic figures animate this practice with various
mythical and supernatural associations and therefore might contribute a certain dimen-
sion to the meaning of protection in this context. In the Neo-Assyrian period, these
often-divergent profiles come under the rule of Marduk (Green 1993-7: 248). The text sep
lemutti ina bit ameli parasu locates the apkallu and lahmu as creatures of the apsu: 'the
statues repelling the evil ones, of Ea and Marduk' (Wiggermann 1992: 87, line 159).
Various apkallu figures come to represent the Babylonian Seven Sages, mythological
antediluvian beings who first brought the arts of civilization to humankind (Black and
Green 1992: 163-4; Wiggermann 1992: 75-6). Monsters, who previously engendered
various forces of life, death, peace and destruction that intervene in human affairs,
become known as Tiamat's creatures, the servants and defeated enemies of Marduk
(Wiggermann 1992: 147-52, 1993-7: 229). As such, these supernatural beings provide
complexly appropriate figures of protection. Like humans, monsters are servants. Unlike
humans, monsters are not born servants; rather, they are born rebel warriors who become
servants in their defeat. Their essential being as rebels completely overthrown, disarmed
22 Carolyn Nakamura

PKALLUSAGES LOWER
GODS IANIMAL
Type Bird-apkallu Fish-apkallu Ninsubur Smiting-god? Latarak Dogs
&
staff flail
Attributes cone & bucket
bucket bucket
brcket gold foil
gold foil staff
staff flail
bird-human bird-human bird-human fish-human god god god in lion pelt quarduped
Form (plaque) (plaque) (plaque) (figurine) (figurine) (figurine) (figurine) (figurine)

Representation

Type Number Ia Ib Ic II III IV V VI

CREATURES:
MONSTERS
& DEMONS
I[TIAMAT'S
Type Six-curled lahmu 2 Basmu Mushussu Ugallu Kusarikku Kulullu
Attributes staff spear copper in
spade mouthe
human human human snake snake-dragon lion-demon bull-human fish-man
(plaque) (plaque) (figurine) (figurine) (figurine) (figurine) (plaque) (figurine)

Representation
•

Type Number VIIa VIIb VIIc VIII IX X XI XII

Figure2 Apotropaicfigurinetypes found at Assur.1. DrawingafterRichardsin Blackand Green

(1992).2. The identificationof the lahmufigureis controversial;it namesboth a cosmogonicdeity
and one of Tiamat'screatures(Wiggermann1992:155-6), and also may representan apkallusage
(Ellis 1995:165;Russell 1991:184,fn. 27).
and acquired by the gods, monsters are reduced to mere pawns and extensions of divine
will and rule. As defeated enemies, monsters only serve; and, as apotropaic figures, they
serve protection: the embodiment of appropriated aggressive being and force controlled
and redirected into defensive power. From this vantage, monsters seem well suited for the
apotropaic: 'the defense that goes on the offensive'. There is undoubtedly something of
the public secret at work here, not only in the flip-flop of offense and defense, but in the
dialectics of what is hidden and manifest in the hybrid physiognomies (Bachelard 1994:
111). Although the issue cannot be further explored here, this point of hybrid
physiognomy articulates well with the notion of liminality discussed earlier.
Suitably then, the apotropaic figures found in the priest house embody those beings
with powers suitable for protection. The bird and fish-apkallu carry various instruments
that purify, effect release and remove sin: the mullilu (cleaner), banduddai (bucket) and
libbi gisimmari (offshoot of the date palm), respectively (Wiggermann 1992: 66-9).
Lahmu - the monster embodiment of the preservation of life (ibid: 152) - becomes
specifically associated with Marduk when carrying a marru (spade), the symbol of the god.
The apkallu and lahmu, therefore, engender powers of purification and divine protection,
respectively. In the context of the priest school, the pairing of purification (bird-apkallu)
with the protection of Marduk (lahmu) might find particular salience in terms of legiti-
mizing the priestly power under the authority of Marduk; at the very least, this apotropaic
team might provide a non-specific idiom of the apotropaic appropriate for general place-
ment within the house.
 Dedicatingmagic 23

Consideredcollectively,the assemblageof Neo-Assyrianapotropaicfigurinesin room

3 suggests linked conceptionsof protection and dedication.The installationof various
beings undergroundto guarddangerousliminalareas such as corners,doors,floors and
thresholdsdelineatesa protectedspace:a space of localizedpower and of a mythological
locality.Notably,these assemblagesalso localize dedication in objects and space. The
creationof powerfulbeingsin apotropaicdepositsengagesthe processof the publicsecret
tantamountto the reproductionof certainsocialrelationsand realities:the priestlypower
of purification,Marduk'sprotectionof humankindand a particularconceptionof being
and worldorder.The dedicatorymode anchorsprotectivepower,permeatingthe mimetic
praxis which creates the apotropaic:the miming of creation, being, world order and
protection.As such,apotropaicdepositsengagethe processof the publicsecretas dedica-
tory gifts that demandprotectionand localizethis powerin designatedspaces.

Concludingremarks

I have suggested that the efficacy of apotropaicmagic emerges in the dedication of

mimesis:a constellationof mimeticgestureswhichcreate power in the process of public
secrecy.Fromthis perspective,the magicalcapacityitself,as a certainqualityof 'mimetic
excess' tantamountto transformation,becomes operativein ancientsocial practice.And,
if we follow the redoubled movements between dedication,protection and magic, we
indeed findthat 'secrecylies at the very core of power' (Canetti1984:270).
While we can never know exactlyhow Mesopotamiansconceivedof apotropaicpower
in their rituals,it is clearthat theirmagicconstitutesand engagesin a particularmode of
knowledge,one that does not easily fit a Westernparadigm.Consequently,the modern
studyof ancientlife necessarilyconcernsthe problematictask of transposingthe views of
one culture to another.Such interpretationtreads even more delicate terrainwhen it
involves the articulationof ancient practicewith contemporarytheory and philosophy
(see Asher-GreveandAsher 1998:35). Despite these difficulties,such a projectremainsa
worthy pursuitsince it attempts to situate ancient life in terms that engage a modern
audienceand have social resonanceacrossa wider register.From this vantage,Mesopo-
tamian magical practice emerges from the shadow of knowledge defined by modern
reason and becomes salient as a sociallyreproductivetechnology.

Acknowledgements

I am gratefulto Lynn Meskell for her supportand encouragementof this project.I am

also grateful to Tom Aldrich, Robin Osborne and an anonymous reviewer whose
thoughtfulcommentson earlierdraftshelpedclarifythe ideas presentedhere.Needless to
say, all mistakes and misrepresentationsremainmy own. Research for this project was
fundedby a generousgrantfrom the Wenner-GrenFoundation.

Columbia University
24 CarolynNakamura

References

Andrae, W. 1938. Das wiedererstandeneAssur. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Asher-Greve, J. M. and Asher, A. L. 1998. From Thales to Foucault. In Intellectual Life of the
Ancient Near East: Papers Presented at the 43rd rencontre assyriologique internationale Prague, July
1-5, 1996 (ed. J. Prosecky). Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute,
pp. 29-40.
Bachelard, G. 1994. The Poetics of Space. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Black, J. and Green, A. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. London: British
Museum Press.
Bottero, J. 1992. Mesopotamia: Writing,Reasoning and the Gods. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Canetti, E. 1984. Crowds and Power. New York: Farrar,Straus & Giroux.
Derrida, J. 1992. Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Ellis, R. 1967. 'Papsukkal' figures beneath the daisies of Mesopotamian temples. Revue d'Assyriol-
ogie et d'Archeologie Orientale, 61: 51-61.
Ellis, R. 1968. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Ellis, R. 1995. The trouble with 'Hairies'. Iraq, 57: 159-65.
Godelier, M. 1999. The Enigma of the Gift. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Green, A. 1983. Neo-Assyrian apotropaic figures: figurines, rituals, and monumental art, with
special reference to the figures from the excavations of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq at
Nimrud. Iraq, 45: 87-96.
Green, A. 1986. The lion-demon in the art of Mesopotamia and neighboring regions: materials
towards the encyclopedia of Mesopotamian religious iconography, I/1. Baghdader Mitteilungen, 17:
144-254.
Green, A. 1993-97. Mischwesen B. In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und VorderasiatischenArchaol-
ogie (eds E. Embling and B. Meissner). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 246-64.
Gurney, O. R. 1935. Babylonian prophylactic figurines and their rituals.Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology, 22:31-96.
Heidegger, M. 1977a. Building dwelling thinking. In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings (ed. D. E
Krell). San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, pp. 343-64.
Heidegger, M. 1977b. The origin of the work of art. In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings (ed. D. E
Krell). San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, pp. 139-212.
Klengel-Brandt, E. 1968. Apotropiische Tonfiguren aus Assur. Forschungen und Berichte, 10: 19-37.
Kovacs, M. 1992. The Epics of Gilgamesh & mythmaking and literature of ancient Mesopotamia.
Asian Art, 5(1): 53-69.
Lebefvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mallowan, M. E. L. 1954. The excavations at Nimrud (Kahlu), 1953. Iraq, 16: 59-114, 115-63.
Meskell, L. 2004. Material Biographies: Object Lessons from Ancient Egypt and Beyond. Oxford:
Berg.
Miglus, P. and Heidemann, S. 1996. Das Wohngebiet von Assur: Stratigraphie und Architektur.
Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
 Dedicating magic 25

Preusser, C. 1954. Die Wohnhiuser in Assur. Wissenschaftliche Veriffentlichungen der Deutschen

Orient-Gesellschaft, 64: 1-66.
Rittig, D. 1977. Assyrisch-babylonische Kleinplastik magischer Bedeutung. Munchen: Verlag
Uni-Druck.
Russell, J. 1991. Sennacherib's Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago and London: University of
ChicagoPress.
Smith,S. 1926.Babylonianprophylacticfigures.Journalof theRoyalAsiaticSociety,1926:695ff.
Taussig, M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity:A Particular History of the Senses. London: Routledge.
Taussig, M. 1999. Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative. Stanford, CA: Stanford
UniversityPress.
Van Buren, E. D. 1931. Foundation Figurines and Offerings. Berlin: Hans Schoetz.
Walker,C. and Dick, M. B. 1999.The inductionof the cult image in ancient Mesopotamia:The
Mesopotamian mis pi ritual. In Born in Heaven Made on Earth:The Making of the Cult Image in the
AncientNearEast (ed, M. B. Dick).WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,pp. 55-122.
Weidner,E. E 1937-9.Neue Bruchsttickedes BerischtestiberSargonsachtenFeldzug.Archivfiir
Orientforschung, 12: 147.
Wiggermann, E A. M. 1992. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits:The Ritual Texts.Groningen: Styx.
Wiggermann, E A. M. 1993-7. Mischwesen A. In Reallexicon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatichen
Archaologie(eds E. Eblingand B. Meissner).Berlinand New York:de Gruyter,pp. 222-45.

Carolyn Nakamura is a PhD candidate in the Anthropology Department at Columbia

University. Her main interests include social theory, magical systems and visual culture.