An Inscribed Silver Amulet from Samaria

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2007 doi: 10.1179/003103207x162979

Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 139, 1 (2007), 5–19

AN INSCRIBED SILVER AMULET FROM SAMARIA

C. Müller-Kessler, T. C. Mitchell and M. I. Hockey

The silver inscribed amulet (PEF 2049) in the collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund was found in atomb of the Graeco-Roman period during the excavations of the British expedition to Samaria directed by J.W. Crowfoot from 1931–35. The silver was tightly rolled up inside a cylindrical copper case and was recog-nized when the copper had fallen away. Comparative study of the associated finds, notably glass and lamps,suggests a date in the 4th or perhaps 5th century AD. The method of unrolling the silver sheet and its conservationis described. A copy and a transliteration of the text, which was directed at the healing of the owner, is given,with discussion of its religious setting and philological commentary.

i. context and date

T. C. Mitchell

The subject of this article is a rolled-up inscribed silver sheet (PEF.2049) in the collections ofthe Palestine Exploration Fund. It was recognised by Mr Paul Davis in the course of aproject he was carrying out of numbering and registering all the antiquities in the collections.

The object was found during the excavations conducted under the direction of J. W.Crowfoot at Samaria-Sebaste in 1931–35. It has the excavation number C 674, and camefrom Tomb E 220, a rock-cut chamber tomb with masonry facings, door jambs and lintels.This was the most substantial burial site of the Graeco-Roman period at Samaria. It is situ-ated to the south-east of the main city near the road leading to what was the village ofNakurah. It consists of a large rectangular outer space, referred to by the excavators as the‘Atrium’, in which was found a stone sarcophagus. Opening off this were a North Chamber(I) out of which in turn opened eight loculi, two still with stone sarcophagi in them, and anEast Chamber (II) out of which there also opened eight loculi, six of them containing stonesarcophagi (description of the tomb by Sukenik 1942, 81–88, with plan fig. 41 (p. 82) (hereFig. 1), sections fig. 42 (p. 84), and good photographs on pls LXXX–LXXXI). In the NorthChamber (I), at the top of the plan, there are eight loculi which run from A on the lowerright, counter-clockwise, to H on the lower left, Loculus B being in the centre on the right.

The object in question was found in Loculus B of the North Chamber (I), one of thosewhich did not contain a sarcophagus. When first discovered the silver scroll was rolled upinside a tubular or cylindrical copper case with copper caps at each end and the remains ofa wire loop for suspension at one end. The excavators did not realise that the silver scroll wasinside, and the object is described in the final report as a ‘Cylinder, possibly a handle (?)With fragments of a pin and tiny hook’ (G. Crowfoot 1957c, p. 432).

The account of this tomb was contributed to the final report by E. L. Sukenik. In thisreport, in ‘A Note on Chronology’, he says ‘The pottery found in this tomb, indicates thedate of the tombs as late second or early third century ad’ (Sukenik 1942, 88). At the sametime, Grace Crowfoot, who prepared the report on the Roman Tombs, states that ‘Therewas little pottery, one ribbed jar, one cooking pot, and twenty five lamps, nearly all imper-fect,’ and she mentions in particular ‘much glass’ and concludes that ‘The tomb, probablybuilt in the second century ad, continued in use throughout the third century. Nothingamong the finds suggests any later occupation’ (G. Crowfoot 1957c, 428).

Address correspondence to T. C. Mitchell, 32 Mallord St., Chelsea, London SW3 6DU; M. I. Hockey, Depart-ment of Conservation, Documentation and Science, British Museum, Great Russell St, London; Christa Müller-Kessler, Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients (Semitistik), Friedrich-Schiller-Universität,Löbdergraben 242, D-07743, Jena, Germany.

6 palestine exploration quarterly, 139, 1 , 2007

Fig. 1. Plan of the tomb.

http://maney-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/003103207x162979&iName=master.img-000.png&w=383&h=480

7inscribed s ilver amulet from samaria

The objects from the different parts of the tomb are well catalogued in the final report,several with good illustrations (G. Crowfoot 1957c, 428–434 [outline catalogue of the smallobjects in the tomb], 373–374 [more specific discussion of lamps], 409–410 [glass]) and somerelevant comparative material is there cited. Account has been taken of this here, but it isappropriate to re-examine some of the objects in the light of more recent evidence about thedating of types.

While the tomb contained objects of gold and silver, mainly jewellery, beads, bone andsome bronze small finds, the most significant collections from the point of view of datingwere pottery, lamps and the glass.

While it is reasonable to consider the objects from the whole tomb, it will be well to startwith those found in the same loculus as the amulet. Here: :‘cf.’ before the final report refer-ence (i.e. G. Crowfoot 1957, 1957a, b, c; J. Crowfoot 1957; Kenyon 1957) indicates ‘similar to’;and other publication references are placed in square brackets with indications of datederiving from them. The symbol ^ indicates the repetition of the preceding reference.

CHAMBER I, LOCULUS B

Gold

Ear-ring, wire with hollow side plate (C 668), cf. G. Crowfoot 1957c, fig. 100.3 [similar toexamples from Karm ash-Shaikh, Jerusalem, Baramki, 1932, 3–9, and e.g. pls VII.2, 7,9; XIV.7 (reasonably datable to the early centuries ad)].

Bronze

Bracelet (diam. 3.6 cm) with bell (C 671), G. Crowfoot 1957c, fig. 100.22 [cf. Petrie 1927,pl. XVIII.33, 34–37 [Late Roman/Coptic]].

The evidence from this material is limited, but it suggests a general date in the earlycenturies ad.

OTHER PARTS OF THE TOMB

Datable objects from other parts of the of the tomb complex are as follows. Their locationsare indicated in square brackets after the excavation numbers, using the abbreviations:A Atrium; AS Sarcophagus in the Atrium; C Main Chamber; I.A Chamber I, Loculus A,etc. and II.A Loculus II, A, etc.

Pottery

Cooking pot, red ribbed, two handles (C.704) [A], cf. Kenyon 1957, fig. 70.9, and pp. 300–302 [Roman 2a].

Jar, ribbed ware with two handles, h.55 cm, Loc. G (C 743b) [I.G], near Kenyon 1957,fig. 72.3, and pp. 303–306 [Roman 4].

Plate fragment with vertical rim, terra sigillata (C.794) [II.F], [cf. Hayes 1997, fig. 20.4 [c. 1stcentury ad]].

Lamps

Reddish ware, Roman, round, flattish, disc (C.721) [II.C], G. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88.8, p. 373[cf. Bailey (1988), p. 280, no. Q2308 [late 1st–2nd century ad]].

Roman flat round (C.748, 749) [C], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88.8, p. 373 [[ ^ ] late 1st–2ndcentury ad].


Roman flat round, design on disc obliterated (C.722 and 3 similar) [A], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957,fig. 88.8, p. 373 [[ ^ ] late 1st–2nd century ad].

Buff ware with trace of red slip, radiating lines in relief; local imitation of Roman (C 743a)[I.H], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88.10 [not earlier than 4th century ad (D. M. Bailey)].

Greyish buff, red slip, pattern of radiating lines, imitation Roman (C.718 and 6 similar) [C],cf. G. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88.10, p. 373 [not earlier than 4th century ad (D. M. Bailey)].

Buff, red slip, radiating lines ((C.723) [A], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957, fig. 88.10, p. 373 [not earlierthan 4th century ad (D. M. Bailey)].

Slightly ovoid, lines in relief; small knob handle on back (C.747) [C], G. Crowfoot 1957,fig. 89.1, p. 374 [not earlier than 4th century ad (D. M. Bailey)].

Slightly ovoid, lines in relief, small knob handle on back (C.754) [A], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957,fig. 89.1, p. 374 [not earlier than 4th century ad (D. M. Bailey)].

Terracotta

Part of bust of Dionysus with wreath of leaves (C 683) [I.D], J. Crowfoot, 1957, 84, pl. XIV.3[late Roman].

Glass

‘Candlestick’ bottle (C.717) [II.C], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.1 [cf. Isings 1957, no. 82A(2)[late 1st–4th century ad]; Whitehouse 1997, no. 261 [late 1st–3rd century ad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottle (C.716) [II.C], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.1; [ ^ [late 1st–3rd/4th centuryad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottle (C.717) [II.C], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.1 [ ^ [late 1st–3rd/4thcentury ad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottle (C.757) [II.B], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.2 [perhaps similar to Isings1957, no. 82A(1) [late 1st–late 2nd century ad]; Whitehouse 1997, no. 252 [late 1st–3rdcentury ad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottle fragments (C.758) [II.B], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.2 [ ^ [perhapslate 1st–3rd century ad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottle (C.759) [II.F], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.3 [perhaps similar to Isings1957, no. 82A(2) [late 1st–4th century ad]; Whitehouse 1997, no. 263 [late 1st–3rdcentury ad]].

‘Candlestick’ bottles (C.760–768) [II.F], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.3 [ ^ [late 1st–3rd/4thcentury ad]].

Small flask (C.664) [C], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.5 [cf. Husseini 1935; Iliffe 1935, pl.LXXXV.5, from a tomb at Beit Fajjam r [4th century ad]].

Bottle (C 770) [I.A], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.7 [cf. Whitehouse 1997, no. 280 [3rd–5thcentury ad or later]].

Flask with spherical body with external ribbing and cylindrical neck with constriction atjunction of the two (C 677) [I.A], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.12 [cf. Isings 1957, no. 103[3rd century ad]; Harden 1987, no. 116 [3rd–4th cent]; Smith 1957, nos 221 [3–4 cent.],349 [2–3 cent.], 353 [350–400 ad], Whitehouse 1997, no. 458 [late 3rd–early 4th centuryad]].

Bowl, fragmentary (C.666) [A], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.15 [examples elsewhere atSamaria, 3rd–5th century ad].

Bowl, fragmentary (C.666) [A], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.15 [ ^ [3rd–5th century ad]].Small jar (C 667) [I.A], G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.16 [cf. Whitehouse 1997, no. 285 [4th–6th

century ad]].


Fragments of small jar (C 790) [I.G], cf. G. Crowfoot 1957b, fig. 94.16 [ ^ [4th–6th centuryad]].

Bronze

Pin with ‘pineapple’ head (C.737) [II.C], G. Crowfoot 1957c, fig. 100.23 [cf., Baramki, 1932,430, pl. IX.9 (Karm ash-Shaikh) [early centuries ad]].

Spatula, plain stem (C.738) [II.C], G. Crowfoot 1957c, fig. 100.25 [cf., Baramki, 1932, 430,pl. IX.9 (Karm ash-Shaikh) [early centuries ad]].

Bone

Needle with ‘pineapple’ head (C.727) [II.C], G. Crowfoot 1957c, fig. 100.18 [cf., Baramki,1932, pl. IX.4, p. 430 [(Karm ash-Shaikh), early centuries ad]].

Beads

Carnelian spacer with two perforations, length 3 cm (C 680) [I.G], G. Crowfoot 1957a,fig. 92.83

Ten glass cylinders, bluish and greenish, attached to each other by wire chains (C 681) [I.F],cf. G. Crowfoot 1957a, fig. 92.91, p. 398 [3rd–4th century ad].

conclusion

While much of this material probably dates from the first to third centuries ad, there aresufficient pieces to indicate that a fourth or even fifth century date is possible. This wouldappear to agree with the palaeography of the inscription on the amulet.

ii. unrolling the silver scrolls

M. I. Hockey

The amulet was brought to the Department of Conservation at the British Museum to beassessed for the possibility of unrolling and restoration. At that time, the object appeared astwo tight rolls of light grey silver in amongst a mass of green mineralized copper alloy frag-ments (Figs 2 and 3). The green fragments were all that remained of the capped cylindricalcase which had contained the scrolls and in which they had been buried. The larger scroll(height: 31.2 mm; diameter: 6 mm) appeared to be a sheet of silver, 0.1 mm thick, rolled intosix coils. The smaller roll (height: 10mm; diameter: 5 mm) had been rolled into six coils andthen flattened and doubled over. This scroll was still attached to one of the ends of thebroken tube, which had corroded in the ground to such an extent that all the metal had beenconverted into copper oxides, carbonates and chlorides. The presence of chlorides or salts, inthe form of what is commonly called ‘bronze disease’, was the factor which had probablycontributed most decisively to the dramatic degradation of the tube. It had broken into nu-merous fragments, many of which had crumbled to dust. The reconstruction of the tube wasjudged to be impracticable, bearing in mind that the main aim of the conservation treatmentwas to reveal for decipherment the inscription on the silver sheet. Traces of the script,inscribed into the silver with a sharp tool, could be seen on the outer edges of both scrolls.

The aim was to reveal as much of this script as possible, but at first it was thoughtthat this would meet with limited success, as the visible edges of the silver were obviouslyextremely brittle. The leading edge of the larger scroll was already detached, a seven-millimetre wide fragment having broken away, leaving the area which should have joinedthe two parts as a mass of tiny fragments and crumbs of silver.


This embrittlement of the silver is caused by inter-crystalline corrosion, which formsalong grain boundaries in the metal during burial. A microscopic cross-section of a brokenouter edge of the metal showed a characteristic granular structure (Fig. 4) and in many areasthere were micro-cracks. It was likely however, that the silver was better preserved in theinterior coils, where it had been protected from immediate contact with the soil. Even so,unrolling could not be safely attempted on the outer coils in their existing state of brittleness.After consideration of various options, it was decided to carry out a test annealing on asmall, crumpled fragment.

During the manufacture of a silver object, each time the metal is hammered it becomesharder and more difficult to work. The craftsman must therefore anneal the object at

Fig. 2. Thefragments ofamulet, asreceived.

Fig. 3. The silver scrolls and afew fragments before treatment.

http://maney-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/003103207x162979&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=299&h=206



intervals to restore malleability. In annealing, the piece is heated to a temperature at whichthe internal stresses are relieved and the metal is softened to allow further working. This pro-cedure is rarely carried out on antiquities as there are risks attached to it and argumentsagainst it. Firstly, there is the risk, in unskilled hands, of overheating or even melting;secondly, because the structure of the metal may have altered unevenly, with possible pock-ets of internal corrosion, the effects of annealing may be unpredictable, with the possibility oflocalized blistering and/or collapse and thirdly, annealing alters the crystal structure, whichis a diagnostic feature used by archaeometallurgists to determine methods of manufacture.

For these reasons, the heating of archaeological metalwork during conservation andrestoration is ethically contentious and is only carried out in very specific circumstances. Inthis case, the treatment was to be carried out by a conservator of metals who was also aqualified silversmith; the object, a thin hammered sheet, was of simple structure requiring nometallurgical analysis; and, in particular, the most important aspect of the object is the infor-mation contained in the script. If successful, annealing would be the safest and most effectiveway of aiding the unrolling to reveal this information.

The test annealing was successful, and it was possible after treatment to straightenthe test fragment without damage or loss. On the basis of this, the larger scroll was thenannealed. This was done on an open hearth, using the flame of a small butane gas torch.A previously recorded treatment on similar scrolls (Rasovsky 1992) reported attempts atannealing in an oven for an extended period at lower temperatures. A silversmith judges byeye when the annealing temperature has been reached by heating the piece in the dark andmaintaining it for a few seconds at dark cherry red, before quenching in water or an acidicsolution. A close watch can be kept on vulnerable areas such as edges and corners, and theflame is kept moving, so that the whole piece is brought evenly to temperature and no onearea is overheated. This method was therefore chosen as a safer and more controllableoption. Annealing not only softens the silver, but burns off much of the surface corrosion andaccretions, leaving it with a clean, silvery white appearance.

The larger scroll was now ready for unrolling. There was still a possibility that the silverwould break up as it was unrolled and to allow for this eventuality a length of fine nylontissue was adhered to the back of the leading edge with an acrylic resin solution applied witha sable brush. The intention was to fix the tissue to the back of the scroll as it unrolled, sothat fragments would be retained in position if they became detached. A boxwood probe wasmade to a suitable shape and used to gently lever open the first few millimetres of the scroll.

Fig. 4. Broken edge showingmicro-cracks.



As more of the silver opened out it became possible to use the fingertips to exert more evenpressure and flatten out the silver without marking the surface (Fig. 5). It soon became clearthat the annealing had been effective and no fragments broke off along the vulnerable lead-ing edge. Further into the scroll the silver in the protected inner coils was indeed in bettercondition, and had responded well to the annealing.

As the unrolling progressed, it could be seen that the entire inner surface of the roll wascovered in script and after two centimetres characters could also be seen on the reverse.At this point it was decided that there was no need to continue attaching the nylon supporttissue. On completion of unrolling, the object appeared as a sheet of silver approximately85x31 mm. The top and left-hand edges were original finished edges, cut and filed square,while the right-hand edge was the broken one that had formed the leading edge of the roll.The bottom edge however, was uneven and ‘wavy’ and appeared to cut through the last lineof script. This raised the question of whether the smaller scroll was in fact the lower part ofthe larger one. It had been rolled up in a different way from the larger scroll, having beenrolled, flattened, and then folded over. The visible end was straight, a finished edge, but theother end was hidden by the broken end of the copper tube, which was still corroded to thesilver. The copper was detached by immersing in a solution of formic acid, which loosenedthe soil accretions and copper carbonates binding the two components. Once these wereremoved the small scroll was rinsed in water, annealed and unrolled in the same way as thelarger one.

When unrolled, the smaller fragment did indeed appear to be the lower part of thelarger, as its top edge followed a similar wavy form, cutting through the top line of script.However, no point of connection could be found between the two edges, which seemed tocome together only at the ‘peaks’ of the waves. One explanation for this might be that,preparatory to inserting the scroll in the copper amulet case, it was partially cut through,about one centimetre from the end, and the smaller piece then grasped between forefingerand thumb and worked backwards and forwards until it tore away. This would have theeffect of stretching the metal at each side of the flattened ends (the ‘peaks’ of the two tornwavy edges) and ‘crimping’ them over (Fig. 6), thus distorting the edges so much that theycould no longer be matched up. The smaller roll, now flattened and therefore too wide to fit

Fig. 5. Beginning unrolling thelarger scroll.



into the copper tube, would then have been doubled over and possibly squeezed into thetube on top of the larger one.

After the annealing and straightening of the larger components came a lengthy micro-scopic examination of the smaller fragments and crumbs of silver in order to re-attach intheir original position any that could be matched up. It was possible to correctly position andadhere, with cellulose nitrate adhesive, some thirty fragments. Of these, a single small pieceformed the crucial link between the large part of the scroll and the detached end fragment,thus giving an accurate length measurement for the original sheet (91 mm) and allowing amore coherent reading of the script (Figs 7 and 8).

The surviving components of the scroll were mounted in a cut-out of clear acrylic sheet,sandwiched between two other sheets and sealed around the edge with archival qualityadhesive tape, thus allowing a view of both front and reverse scripts. The script itself iscrisply inscribed into the silver, not engraved, as no metal has been removed. The composi-tion of the metal, analysed by x ray fluorescence by R. Kibrya in the British Museum’sDepartment of Scientific Research, showed it to be pure silver, with only traces of gold,copper and lead. This would have made it soft enough for a bone or wooden scriber to havebeen used, but the lines are so sharply inscribed, with several cut right through at somepoints, that a metal point, slightly squared off, seems the likeliest tool.

Before the scroll was sealed in its protective mount, the inscription was traced on toa sheet of clear polyester film (Figs 9 and 10). This was carried out under a microscope atx20 magnification, to ensure that only deliberately scribed lines rather than scratches, acci-dental indentations, or indeed indentations from the script on other side, were recorded forepigraphic study.

Fig. 6. The ‘crimped’, torn edgeof the larger scroll.



iii. the inscription

C. Müller-Kessler

1. Background

Metal plaques inscribed with charms against evil entities have been very rare compared withtheir earthenware counterparts, magic bowls from Babylonia and Persia. Such metal objectshave only recently attracted a major interest in studies and publications and quite a numberof them have been edited in the last two decades. This text genre has also been consideredto be an inferior source, being the ad hoc production of scribes without any literary style. Oneoften finds the notion that one is dealing here with backwater texts, scribbled down by illit-erate scribes for superstitious clients in dark and hidden abodes, an idea still maintained inrecent publications (Segal 2000, 24–29). However, Joseph Naveh at first on his own (Naveh1983; 1985), and then together with Shaul Shaked (1985; 1993) brought a change to thisscholarly attitude. They came up with two publications presenting magical texts on metaland clay, which had been discovered in provenances such as Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,Palestine, Turkey, and Syria. They also included late manuscripts on paper with magicalcontent from the Cairo Genizah. Although some of the texts had been edited before, both

Fig. 7. The scrolls after unrolling. Front, maintext.

Fig. 8. The scrolls after unrolling, Reverse.

Fig. 10. Tracing of the script on the reverse ofthe scrolls.

Fig. 9. Tracing of the script on the front of thescrolls.






authors improved the readings considerably. These two text studies were the first seriousscholarly approaches in the field since the tentative attempt by Montgomery 1913 which triedto combine various magic texts by showing interrelations which exist in spite of their easternand western provenances, and presenting them in a collected fashion. At the same time, andafter a few further inscribed metal amulets were published, either in Aramaic only (Kotansky1991b; McCollough and Glazier-McDonald 1996, 1998; Tsereteli 1996; Naveh 2001; 2002),in Hebrew and Aramaic (Hamilton 1996)1, in Greek and Aramaic (Kotansky and Naveh andShaked 1992) or in Greek and Hebrew (Kotansky 1991a). This work has shown that suchmetal phylacteries were as popular for writing Hebrew and Aramaic as for the Greek andLatin tabellae defixionum of which more has been known hitherto (Kotansky 1994, XV XIX).The earliest metal amulets inscribed in Hebrew are the two silver strips from Ketef Hinnomwith the Biblical benediction from Numbers 6:24-25a (Barkay 1992; Yardeni 1991; Jaroš1997) dating from around the 7th cent. bc. Next to them in date are those in Phoenician andEgyptian (Kotansky 1991b, 267–68).

Metal phylacteries like the specimen presented here, which was discovered in a cylindri-cal copper case, were either tightly rolled up or folded into a little strip, and then placed ina metal container as known from the mezuza (Trachtenberg 1939, 146–47). In contrast to thelater usage on door posts for the protection of the residence, clients wore the phylacteriesaround their necks, according to instructions found on Mandaic lead rolls from the BritishMuseum and in late incantation series from the Drower Collection. They specifically say,h’zy<n> pwgd’m’ ktwb wrmybh mnd’m qwblyh d-ktybybh pwqrmylh bsD wrh, ‘Write this incantationand put some countercharm on it, which is written on it, and put it around the (client’s)neck’ (Müller-Kessler 1999a, 449); or kdwb whtwm bgwpt’ d-q’yn’ d-zr’r’ w‘’lyq bsDwr’, ‘Writeand seal it (= the incantation) in a container of special reed and place (it) on his neck’ DC20:193–194 (Burtea 2005, 77, 82)2. Other places of deposit include below the thresholds ofhouses, as in the case of a collection of amulets, which were hidden in a lead pot, sealed witha lead stopper, and unearthed in el-Qurna, an ancient site at the confluence of Tigris andEuphrates in southern Iraq (Müller-Kessler 1999b, 198). In a recent find from Mtskheta,Georgia, a gold amulet inscribed with Aramaic and Hebrew was discovered in an earthen-ware pitcher, buried in the corner of a private house (Tsereteli 1996, 218)3. In Palestine, theywere either deposited in the apse of a synagogue, as for example in the ancient synagogue ofNirim in the Negev (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 90), or even in the corners of private houses inHd

orvat Kanaf (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 46), but in most instances the finds were made ingraves or tombs, e.g. in ‘Evron (Kotansky 1991a, 81), a non localizable site near Aleppo, andin Oxyrrhynchus (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 58, 82), as well as the present Samarian silveramulet (see above), respectively. For most of the objects, however, there is no information,since they were illegally removed from their archaeological context, and found their way topublication through the antiquities market and private collectors.

The scripts on the metal sheets and other materials can vary according to the Aramaicdialect employed. There are attestations of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Naveh and Shaked1985; 1993) and its forerunners in Aramaic square characters from Qumran (Naveh 1998),and Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (Geller 1997, 331–35), all in Aramaic square script;Christian–Palestinian–Aramaic in a converted Syriac script (Naveh and Shaked 1993,107–109), Syriac in Estrangela (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 62–68), Mandaic with its specificMandaic letters (Müller-Kessler 2002b) and Sert

do on leather (Gignoux 1987; Naveh 1999).

The Samaritan amulets inscribed in Samaritan characters known so far only give Biblequotations in Samaritan Hebrew, sometimes with a few Greek words (Pummer 1989,652–55) This brings us to the varying content of such inscribed objects. These metal amuletsand bowls were destined to protect against the evil elements, predominantly demons who


endangered life and health (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 82–84, 188–90), especially to new bornbabies and young children (Müller-Kessler 2001, 344–52; Ford 2002), to sexual intercourseand fertility (Montgomery 1913, 213–27; Müller-Kessler 1996; Levene 2002, 39–43), tobelongings like house, court, field, crop, well, and domestic animals of the clients mentionedin such charms (Müller-Kessler 2005, 24–27, 148–50), and even to wine (Naveh and Shaked1993, 133–36). Thus, one encounters all kinds of demons, even disease names like fever, chill,headache (Teixidor 1963, 58–59 [IM 5034]4; Naveh and Shaked 1985, 44–46; Shaked 1995,207–11; McCollough and Glazier-McDonald 1996), and units of time are sometimes con-sidered to be demons which have to be expelled from the surroundings of the endangeredobjects, mostly human beings (Müller-Kessler 2002a). There even exist charms that wereintentionally written to safeguard domestic animals and their shed and fodder (Gordon 1934,328–29; Müller-Kessler 1999b, 202–04; 2005, 24–27). Some incantation formulae mention nospecific causes, but are simply destined for the general well-being of a person as for examplein the amulet edited here.

2. Text

The Samarian silver amulet inscription published here has nine lines on the obverse, but italso shows repetitive letters and magical signs on the reverse (Figs 7–10). This stands, so far,in contrast to western metal amulets, which are incised only on one side because of the verythin metal, since the inscription of the obverse usually protrudes on the reverse, making itdifficult to write on this side as well.5 The metal plaque has not been preserved in one piece.The smaller lower part was separated from the top and there were a few tiny pieces brokenaway from the right hand side. Because of this line 7 cannot be fully restored. The metalsheet is inscribed with a crude Aramaic square script. Some shapes of the characters con-form to those attested on similar written artefacts from Late Antiquity. The ductus is similarto the script on the amulet from Teqoa‘ south of Bethlehem, now housed in the Museum ofthe Flagellation Convent in Jerusalem (Naveh and Shaked 1985, 78–81).6 The pe and tD etD showrather peculiar forms. Silver, like gold, tends to be a very hard writing material that oftenresults in clumsy letter forms.

3. Contents

The text of silver amulet presented here can be placed within the context of similar amuletsfrom neighbouring vicinities in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. So far its content is unique,however, since identical incantation formulae are not found.7 There exists a certain magicphraseology which keeps recurring. Some exception to the rule can be noted, but this doesnot apply to the amulet in question.

Transliteration

1 pr?tD[š/s b]r rk[x]’ ’sy lh bšm ’š ’š ’šym2 hw[. .]’ l‘l ’l šdy šd šd yhwh yh yhh yh yh yh3 sDb’wt sDb’wt sDb’wt sDb’wt sDwr sDry sDr sDry4 ‘lm šm p?ly’ sb šmk wywšby hkrwbym yyyy5 sDb’wt šmw yy wrwhD rwhD wrwhD hD sdyk šym6 [. . . . . .] thDu [. . .] xlprtDš bšm mytky’lu [. . .]7 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]8. tmult’u[kh] yyyyyyy xx w’sy lpr?tDs XX bšm9 [. . .] yhwd’ yyyy sDb’wt šytDyym lsD’mym


4. Notes

The content is difficult to make out, since this charm contains various names of God andallusions to him. One should point out that both the quotation of biblical verses or phrases,and the inclusion of the names of God, were considered to be very effective in making anincantation work. One can claim, therefore, that the earliest inscribed metal amulets datingfrom the seventh century bc are the two silver sheets from Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem, citingthe Priestly Benediction from Numbers 6:24–26 (Jaroš 1997). The biblical passages weretaken in themselves as a protecting charm. That biblical verses without an incantationformula could serve as magical charms in this way is now convincingly attested in magicbowls from Mesopotamia (Kaufman 1973; Müller-Kessler 2005, 12–13).

1 The beginning of the first line is difficult to make out, since at least four letters aremissing on account of the broken state of the metal. The remaining traces make itimpossible to restore the first two or three words. They could be the client’s name.The same sequence of letters prtD s is repeated in l. 6 (with shin) and l. 8 (with samekh).Then follows the imperative of the verb ’sy ‘to heal’ and the direct object particlel- plus the possessive suffix of the third person singular masculine or femininedepending on the client’s gender. The same is found again in l. 8. A somewhat simi-lar phrase occurs on a bronze amulet from Horvat Kannah, Galilee, ’sy lsymwn hdnbrh dqtD tD yh, ‘heal this Simon son of Kattia’ (MSF A19:31–32; Naveh and Shaked 1993,62). The instruction to heal is followed by the name by whom the protected personshould be healed, ‘in the name of ’š ’š ’šym ’.

2 Again the line is damaged at the beginning and only the first two letters are legible.Then the text has l‘l ’l šdy šd šd yhwh ‘and above El Shaddai, Shad, Shad, YHWH’followed by abbreviated forms of the tetragrammaton. The latter can be written inall kinds of combinations and abbreviations, see ll. 4, 8, and 9.

3/4 This line repeats sD b’wt ‘host’, another epithet of God, three times. Then follows aword play, an alliteration sDwr sD ry sD r sD ry ‘lm, ‘the rock’, meaning God, is ‘the enemiesof the enemy of the world’, a further epithet of God. A shortened version of thephrase appears in a late Cairo Genizah manuscript from the Middle Ages (Navehand Shaked 1985).

4 The text before ywšby hkrwbym defies a satisfactory interpretation.6 Line 6 is difficult to read, since the lower parts of some letters are broken away. The

remaining traces of letters at the end of the line might be myky’l; cf. on this angelname Mach 1999, 569–72.

7 This line seems to be completely missing.8 The first word might be ml’kh.

In summary, the conclusion is that the amulet was destined for the healing of a named client.Only a few letters of his name remain. In this Samarian amulet, protection is requestedfor the client, with the help of various names of God. This is a known concept in Syro-Palestinian, and sometimes also in Mesopotamian incantations. Unfortunately, the damagedright hand part and the fact that line 7 is missing make it difficult to obtain a continuoussequence of the text. Therefore, the complete inscription cannot be restored and the under-standing of the magic formula is far from clear, making a translation difficult. If a parallelformula should turn up, however, there would be a chance of filling the gaps. The majorpart of the incantation is in Hebrew, but the introductory phrase with the verb ‘to heal’plus the accusative particle in lines 1 and 6 is Aramaic. This accords with the usage inSyro-Palestinian phylacteries from Late Antiquity.


notes

4 The bowl text was not transliterated and the transla-tion is very tentative.5 Only Mandaic lead sheets, including gold and silver

are incised as a rule on both sides (Müller-Kessler1998).6 The copy by Ada Yardeni in the volume is superior

to the one by Milik 1967, 451.7 Shortly before handing in this article Helen Sader

kindly showed me a silver amulet from the south ofLebanon with the same scribal hand and formula in-cluding the magical signs as in amulet no. 20 (Navehand Shaked 1993, 67–68), but relating to a different cli-ent (male). The latter object from the private BernardGimbel Collection turns out to be heavily damagedthrough unrolling and at least a third of the metal sheetmust be missing on the right hand side. The Lebanonamulet will be published in due course by Helen Sader.

bibliography

Bailey, D. M., 1988. Catalogue of Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum, III (London).Bailey, D. M., undated. Personal communication.Baramki, D. C. 1932. ‘Note on a Cemetery at Karm al-Shaikh, Jerusalem’ QDAP 1, 3–9, pls II–XVIII.Barkay, G., 1992. ‘The Priestly Benediction on silver plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem’, Tel Aviv 19, 139–92.Burtea, B., 2005. ‘Ein mandäischer magischer Text aus der Drower Collection’. In Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica.

Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläblich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004 (AOAT 317: Münster), 71–96.Crowfoot, G. M. 1957. ‘Lamps’ in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, III, The

Objects of Samaria (London), 365–78.Crowfoot, G. M. 1957a. ‘Faience, amulets and beads’ in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon,

Samaria-Sebaste, III, The Objects of Samaria (London), 389–402.Crowfoot, G. M. 1957b. ‘Glass’ in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, III, The

Objects of Samaria (London), 403–22.Crowfoot, G. M. 1957c. ‘Roman tombs’ in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, III,

The Objects of Samaria (London), 423–38.Crowfoot, J. W. 1957. ‘Figurines: Greek and Roman terracottas’ in J. W. Crowfoot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M.

Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, III, The Objects of Samaria (London), 83–84.Ford, J. N., 2002. ‘Another look at the Mandaic incantation bowl BM 91715’, JANES 29, 31–47.Geller, M. J., 1997. ‘More magic spells and formulae’, BSOAS 60, 327–35, pls. 1–4.Gordon, C. H., 1934. ‘Aramaic magical bowls in the Istanbul and Baghdad Museums’, ArOr 6, 319–34, pls. X–XV.Hamilton, G. J., 1996. ‘A new Hebrew-Aramaic incantation text from Galilee: “Rebuking the Sea”’, JSS 41,

215–49.Harden, D.B. et al., 1987. Glass of the Caesars (Corning, London and Cologne).Hayes, J.W., 1997. Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery (London).Husseini, S.A.S., 1935. ‘A Fourth-Century a.d.Tomb at Beit Fajjâr’ QDAP 4, 175–177, pls LXXXIV–LXXXVI.Iliffe, J. H., 1935. ‘Note on the Lamps from Tomb at Beit Fajjâr’ QDAP 4, 177–178.Isings, C., 1957. Roman Glass from Dated Finds [Archaeologica Traiectina II] (Groningen).Jaroš, K., 1997. Die ältesten Fragmente eines Biblischen Textes (Mainz).Kaufman, S. A., 1973. ‘A unique magic bowl from Nippur’, JNES 32, 170–74.Kenyon, K., 1957. ‘Pottery: Hellenistic and Roman: B. Roman and later wares: 2. Stratified groups’ in J. W. Crow-

foot, G. M. Crowfoot and K. M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste, III, The Objects of Samaria (London), 288–306.Kotansky, R., 1991a. ‘An inscribed copper amulet from ‘Evron’, Atiqot 20, 81–87.Kotansky, R., 1991b. ‘Two inscribed Jewish Aramaic amulets from Syria’, IEJ 41, 267–81.Kotansky, R., 1994. Greek Magical Amulets. The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae. Part I. Published Texts

of Known Provenance (Opladen).Kotansky, R., Naveh, J. and Shaked, S., 1992. ‘A Greek-Aramaic silver amulet from Egypt in the Ashmolean

Museum’, Le Muséon 105, 5–25.Levene, D., 2002. A Corpus of Magic Bowls (London).Mach, M., 1999. ‘Michael’, in K. Toorn, Becking and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in

the Bible2 (Leiden), 569–72.McCollough, C. T. and Glazier-McDonald, B., 1996. ‘An Aramaic bronze amulet from Sepphoris’, Atiqot 28,

161–65.McCollough, C. T. and Glazier-McDonald, B., 1998. ‘Welcome to the world of magic’, Odyssey 50–56.Milik, J. T., 1967. ‘Une amulette judéo-araméenne’, Biblica 48, 450–51.

1 The only inscription on clay.2 Burtea does not seem to comprehend the textual

context and translates: ‘Es wurde geschrieben undversiegelt in einem Amulettbehälter aus Bambusrohrund es wird um den Hals gehängt’, although the verbsare both clear pe‘al imperatives.3 Contrary to the statement of Tsereteli, the amulet is

not written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (1996, 239)but in a kind of standard Aramaic, which can be con-fused on account of mutual Western Aramaic features.The distinction can be seen in the way in which the fili-ation is expressed, namely ’brhm br sarh instead of theexpected Palestinian construction *’brhm brh dsarh, asanalytic construct with the proleptic suffix, which wouldpoint to a Palestinian or Syrian provenance; cf. AMB A2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, and MSF A 16, 17, 18, 19,21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.


Montgomery, J. A., 1913. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (PBS 3: Philadelphia).Müller-Kessler, C., 1996. ‘The story of Bguzan-Lilit, daughter of Zanay-Lilit’, JAOS 116, 185–95.Müller-Kessler, C., 1998. ‘A Mandaic gold amulet in the British Museum’, BASOR 311, 83–88.Müller-Kessler, C., 1999a. ‘Aramáische Beschwörungen und astronomische Omina in nachbabylonischer Zeit –

Das Fortleben mesopotamischer Kultur im Vorderen Orient’, in J. Renger (ed.), Babylon: Focus MesopotamischerGeschichte, Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne (2. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft: Berlin), 427–43.

Müller-Kessler, C., 1999b. ‘Interrelations between Mandaic lead rolls and incantation bowls’, in T. Abusch, andK. van der Toorn (eds), Mesopotamian Magic (Ancient Magic and Divination 1: Groningen), 197–209.

Müller-Kessler, C., 2001. ‘Lilit(s) in der aramäisch-magischen Literatur der Spätantike. Teil 1: Wüstenbe-herrscherin, Baum-Lilit, Kindesräuberin’, AoF 28, 338–52.

Müller-Kessler, C., 2002a. ‘A charm against demons of time’, in C. Wunsch (ed.), Mining the Archives. Festschrift forChristopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Dresden), 183–88.

Müller-Kessler, C., 2002b. ‘Jüdische und gnostische Beschwörungen medizinischen Inhalts aus der Spätantike desOstens’, in A. Karenberg and C. Leitz (eds), Heilkunde und Hochkultur II. ‘Magie und Medizin’ und ‘Der alte Mensch’in den antiken Zivilisationen des Mittelmeerraumes (Naturwissenschaft – Philosophie – Geschichte 16: Münster 2002),183–208.

Müller-Kessler, C., 2005. Die Zauberschalentexte der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena und weitere Nippur-Texte anderer Sammlungen(TMH 7: Wiesbaden).

Naveh, J., 1983. ‘A recently discovered Palestinian Jewish aramaic amulet’, in M. Sokoloff (ed.), Aramaeans, Aramaic,and the Aramaic Literary Tradition (Ramat-Gan), 81–88.

Naveh, J., 1985. ‘“A good subduing, there is none like it.’ An ancient amulet from Horvat Marish in the Galilee’,Tarbiz 54, 367–82.

Naveh, J., 1998. ‘Fragments of an Aramaic magic book from Qumran’, IEJ 48, 251–62.Naveh, J., 1999. ‘A Syriac amulet on leather’, JSS 42, 33–38.Naveh, J., 2001. ‘An Aramaic amulet from Bar‘am’, in A. J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner (eds.), Judaism in Late

Antiquity, Part 3, Volume 4. Where We Stand. Issues & Debates in Ancient Judaism. The Special Problem of the Synagoge(HdO 55, 34: Leiden), 179–85.

Naveh, J., 2002. ‘Some Jewish Palestinian Aramaic amulets’, JSAI 26, 231–36.Naveh, J. and Shaked, S., 1985. Amulets and Magical Bowls. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem).Naveh, J. and Shaked, S., 1993. Magic Spells and Formulae. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem).Petrie, F., 1927. Objects of Daily Use [Publications of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt, XLII] (London).Pummer, R., 1989. ‘Samaritan rituals and customs’, in A. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tübingen), 650–90.Rasovsky, M. et al., 1992. ‘Cleaning and unrolling the silver plaques’ Tel Aviv 19, 192–94.Segal, J. B., 2000. Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London).Smith, R. Winfield, 1957. Glass form the Ancient World. The Ray Winfield Smith Collection (Corning).Sukenik, E. L., 1942. ‘Later periods: The tombs’ in J. W. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon and E. L. Sukenik, Samaria-

Sebaste, I, The Buildings at Samaria, (London), 81–88, pls LXXX–LXXXI.Trachtenberg, J., 1939. Jewish Magic and Superstition (reprint: New York 1970).Tsereteli, K, 1996. ‘An Aramaic amulet from Mtskheta’, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 8, 218–40.Whitehouse, D., 1997. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass, I (Corning).Yardeni, A., 1991. ‘Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on two ancient amulets from Jerusalem’, VT 41, 176–85.

An Inscribed Silver Amulet from Samaria

Documents