CILICIA_ANEMUR_Russell 1995 Archaeological Context of Magic.pdf

This is an extract from:

Byzantine Magic

edited by Henry Maguire

published by

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Washington, D.C.

Trustees for Harvard University

Washington, D.C.

Printed in the United States of America

www.doaks.org/etexts.html

The Archaeological Context of Magic

in the Early Byzantine Period

JAMES RUSSELL

The observant traveler familiar with the byways of southem Turkey will occa-

sionally encounter small trees with their branches festooned with white pieces

of cloth. A typical example may be seen near the lip of the Corycian Cave, a

site of primeval numen, believed in antiquity to be the home of Typhon (Fig.

1).’ On the rare occasions that I have seen people actually tying rags to bushes

such as these, they were usually elderly women either alone or accompanied

by young girls. Since the social constraints of Turkish rural society preclude

me from serious discussion with the individuals engaged in the activity, 1 de-

pend for an explanation of the custom on the remarks of male villagers whose

scorn for the practice is barely disguised. There can be little doubt, however,

that the custom of tying rags to bushes is very ancient and survives from a time

when most people in this region of Turkey were still nomads or at least not yet

fully sedentary. The purpose of those who engage in the practice is not in ques-

tion. They are hoping thereby to secure some desired objective, the cure of an

ailment or the ability to conceive a child on the part of a relative. There is much

less certainty about the precise magical properties of the tree itself and the rag,

or of the site selected for the ritual and the processes by which the desired ends

will be achieved. The outsider can only acknowledge the truth of the opinion

with which J. P. Roux concludes his discussion of this particular custom: “il

faut se resigner, dans le monde des nomades anatoliens, a ne pas expliquer

d’une maniare satisfaisante des faits qu’ils ont conserves sans bien connaftre

1 Strabo, 14.5.5; Pomponius Mela, 1.13. T S. MacKay, “The Major Sanctuaries

of Pamphylia and Cilicia

ANRW II.18.3 (Berlin, 1990), 2103—10.

James Russell

leur signification et que, pour satisfaire leur besoin de comprendre, ils justifient

comme ils peuvent.” 2

This example of magic in practice in the contemporary setting of rural

Turkey serves to illustrate the difficulties that confront the scholar who seeks

to comprehend magical beliefs among simple people. Even with the obvious

advantage of autopsy and the opportunity to communicate with those familiar

with the custom, much still defies explanation. By contrast, students of ancient

magic must rely exclusively on the texts of spells and charms and the instruc -

tions for effecting them contained in papyri and on what survives of the actual

instrumenta employed to exercise magic, such as amulets, engraved gem -

stones, bracelets, and phylacteries. These materials are no substitute for the

living practitioners of magic as primary evidence, and their study begs a broad

range of questions. Since the magical papyri are predominantly from Egypt,

how valid are their contents for the Roman and Byzantine world as a whole?

The material apparatus of magic such as amulets, on the other hand, even

allowing for the uncertainty of provenance, is clearly drawn from a far broader

geographical range, and especially Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. This sug -

gests a homogeneity of practice and belief in magic, especially evident in the

iconography of devices to ward off the evil eye. How may we account, there -

fore, for such uniformity, in the absence of any known organizing force or

common statement of belief such as the Christian church employed in its un -

successful efforts to maintain unity of doctrine? Another vexing question is

whether the excessive reliance of modern scholarship on the written text gives

a distorted impression of magical practices which, if contemporary Mediterra -

nean societies are any guide, probably required little if any literacy on the

part of those employing them. In short, is there not a risk of missing the

mark when we allow the ancient commentators on Byzantine magic, whether

sympathetic, as in the case of those who wrote treatises on the subject, or

hostile, as in the case of the church fathers, to stand between us and the

largely poor and illiterate inhabitants of small towns, villages, and country -

side who actually wore the amulets and uttered the spells and perhaps even

tied white rags on bushes?

My interest in these matters originated with a group of objects found dur -

2 J. P. Roux, Les traditions des nomades de la Turquie meridionale, Bibliotheque

archeologique et historique de 1’Institut Francais d’Archeologie d’Istanbul 24 (Paris,

1970), 208—12.

Archaeological Context of Magic

ing excavations at the small town of Anemurium on the coast of Isauria3

Though unfamiliar at the time of their discovery, it soon became clear that

these objects were devices intended to protect their owners from the evil eye

in the course of their daily lives. It also became apparent that they belonged to

a time in the community’s life when its creative energies were concentrated on

the Christian religion, a fact reflected in both the proliferation of church build-

ings in the city and its surrounding chora and in the wide range of personal

benefactions recorded in their mosaic floors. 4 In this respect Anemurium was

doubtless no different from most other communities throughout the eastem

Mediterranean in the early Byzantine period. Underlying this devotion to the

new faith, however, there clearly remained a deeply engrained attachment to

practices inherited from some timeless past involving various forms of magic.

Of these none commanded more widespread adherence from the general popu -

lation than the belief in the bewitching glance of the evil eye, known variously

as phthonos, baskania, baskosyne, baskanos ophthalmos, or, in Latin, invidia

or invidiosus oculus. This unseen force could maim livestock, blight crops,

render women barren, strike down children, or destroy the home, wealth, and

health of the unknowing victim of its attention. 5 Examples of its influence and

the measures taken to counter it were, and indeed remain, at least in rural

society, ubiquitous throughout the eastern Mediterranean in numerous forms.

In antiquity, householders inscribed apotropaic formulae to accompany the

3 For summaries of the history and antiquitiesof the site on the basis offieldwork,

see J. Russell, ‘Anemurium—eine romische Kleinstadt in Kleinasien,” Antike Welt 7.4

(1976), 2—20; and Anemurium: The Changing Face of a Roman City,” Archaeology

33.5 (1980), 31—40. Interim reports of field work in progress have appeared regularly

since 1966 in TurkArkDerg. in “Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey” in AnatSt,

and in M. J. Mellink, “Archaeology in Asia Minor” in AJA. All of the objects discussed

are housed in the Anamur Museum.

4 See especially J. Russell, The Mosaic Inscriptions of Anemurium, Erganzungs-

band zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 13, DenkWien, phil-hist. Kl. 190 (Vienna, 1987).

3 The basic study of the evil eye in antiquity remains 0. Jahn, Uber den Aber -

glauben des bosen Blicks bei den Alten, Berichte uber die Verhandl. der K. sachsischen

Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Leipzig, phil.-hist. Kl. 7 (Leipzig, 1855), 28—110. For

more recent discussions, J. Engemann, “Zur Verbreitung magischer Ubelabwehr in der

nichtchristlichen und chrisflichen Spatantike JbAChr 18 (1975), 22—48 and K. M. D.

Dunbabin and M. W Dickie, “Invida rumpantur pectora: The Iconography ofPhthonos -

Invidia In Graeco-Roman Art

JbAChr 26 (1983), 7—37.

38 James Russell

cross on their doors, 6 uttered special prayers to avert the danger, sometimes

even with ecclesiastical authority, 7 and addressed their friends or named their

children Abascantos: “Immune from the Evil 8 Above all, people wore

amulets, rings, and other protective devices inscribed with potent symbols and

formulae to avert the bewitching glance of the envious. 8

As a rule such beliefs were frowned on by the authorities, both secular

and religious, as is evident from the writings of the church fathers, which

abound with strictures against the superstitious fear of the evil eye and the

amulets associated with it.’ 8 No amount of preaching, however, nor even the

occasional imposition of penalties on their use by both civil and religious au -

thorities, seems to have had much effect on the use of amulets by the peasant

and the artisan. 11 Just how widespread their use was may be deduced from the

archaeological context of the objects under consideration, which provides a

more objective record of how ordinary people coped with the evil eye in their

daily lives than the prejudiced testimony of most literary texts.

6 The commonest formulae employed are the trisagion, kuri boethi or some van -

ant, Eis theos monos XMG (probably Christos, Michael, Gabriel) and IXTHUS; see

W. K. Prentice, “Magical Formulae ofLintels of the Christian Period in Syria AJA 10

(1901), 137—50. For formulae actually averting phthonos by name, cf. IGLSyr~ no. 1909

and H. Gregoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chretiennes d’Asie Mineure, I

(Paris, 1922), no. 230.

7 For examples of prayers, see A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia, I (Liege, 1927),

243.11 (prayer of Gregory Theologos). For a prayer with ecclesiastical authority, see

Mikron Euchologion, ed. M. Saliveros (Athens, n.d.), quoted in French translation by

L. Amaud, “La baskania ou le mauvais oeil chez les grecs modernes

EO 15 (1912),

386—87.

6 L. Robert, “Hellenica RPh 18 (1944), 41—42; REG 64 (1951), 146, no. 55.

9 On amulets generally, see H. Leclercq, art. “amulettes,” DACL, 1.2 (Paris,

1924), cols. 1784—1860; F X. Kraus, art. “amulete,” Realenz.yklopadie der Christl. Al -

terthumer~ 1 (Freiburg, 1880), 49—51. The most comprehensive collection of examples

appears in C. Bonner, Studies in MagicalAmulets (Ann Arbor, 1950), especially 95—99

on the evil eye.

10 Representative examples include John Chrysostom, horn. 8 on Col. 3:15, PG

62, cols. 357—58; hom. 4 on 1 Cor. 1:25, PG 61, col. 38; Augustine, Thact. 7, §6 on

John 1:34—51, CChr 36, 70; Basil of Caesarea on Ps. 45 § 29, PG 29, col. 417; and

especially hom. de Invidia, PG 31, col. 380; Jerome, Comm. in Matth. 4.23, CChr 77,

211—12.

1 Imposition of penalties by civil authorities: Constantius II (Ammian. Marcell.,

19.12.13); Valentinian and Valens (CTh, 9.16.7); by religious authorities: Synod ofLao -

dicaea (C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles, I.2 [Paris, 1907], Con. 36, 1018—19).

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: