Qué nos muestra la fragmentación

es-sential information about the materiality involved, the fashioning, ritual preparation, treatment and placement of the figurines, as well as ritual instructions. Afterwards, I discuss the materiality of the figurines and their placement in underground boxes. The analysis shows that the

ritu-151–59) he advances the view that the monsters are threatening and un-predictable adversaries, and that their apotropaic use is well covered by the mythology of defeated enemies and subsequent servants (1992,157). In sum, Wiggermann seems to privilege the roles of the monsters in mythology, and their etymologies, somewhat with respect to his analyses of these monsters over their roles in the rituals.

23 Anthony Green clearly recognizes that these hybrid beings are indeed benign in their current ritual context (as does the entry ‘Figurines’ in Black and Green 1992), that they are used to attract good things. Green suggests that it is the connection of the monsters to creation and primeval times that makes them effective for protection (1984, 83–86). Still when he discusses their benign nature in the rituals vis-à-vis their negative role in mythology, he explains their ritual use as a way of setting ‘a thief to catch a thief’ (an expression that goes back to Mallowan; Green 1984).

24 I thus return here to an early, personal interest in these monster figu-rines and the related rituals to elaborate and substantiate suggestions and ideas I put forward in Feldt 2003.

al practices with the figurines, and the materiality and use of the figu-rines, point in the direction of understanding these monsters as benign, and that the ritual practices involved tap into broader discourses about divine presence and image representation in ancient Mesopotamia.

While both Text 1 and Text 2 make it clear that the purpose of the ritual is to ward off ‘evil things’ (Text 1,1–19; Text 2, rev.30–46),²⁵ this is not done by installing evil and dangerous, but conquered and subdued, monsters to ward off other evil beings as it has often been understood (Wiggermann 1992, Maul 2000). I suggest instead that the figurines de-flect evil because they enable and attract the presence of benign beings in the house, which bring with them good things like abundance, life and good health. As a result of the presence of benign beings and the good forces and things they bring with them, evil beings cannot enter.

We find this ‘presence-effect’ idea of divine nearness also in relation to the divine statues in the official temple cult. It is a basic line of religious thought in ancient Mesopotamia that if benign transempirical beings are present – from the deity in his or her statue in the temple, to one’s personal gods (ilu and ištar), or an individual’s minor, personal guardian deities (lamassu and šēdu) – then evil or disease will not harm you. Sim-ilar ideas are found on a societal level: if an enemy attacks and destroys the statue in the temple, it is seen as an expression of the deity’s anger and abandonment of his or her temple. On the personal level: if you fall ill, the religious explanation will be that you have done something to anger your personal gods to make them leave you (Oppenheim 1977, 183–198; Wiggermann 1995,1861; Dick and Walker 2001,6–8). Plausibly, this type of magical practice for the protection of houses taps into these general religious ideas in ancient Mesopotamia: in order to ward off the presence of demons in the house: you attract the presence of benign supernatural beings.

I will try to show that the ritual texts analysed here labour to pro-duce monster figurines that function as media for the presence of benign beings, and that they present them as possessing benevolent functions that go beyond simply warding off evil demons. Let us look first at the texts. How are the monster figurines produced, how are they referred to in the texts, and what may this lead us to conclude about their function and valuation? And secondly, what is said about their ritual treatment 25 Text 1 mentions a series of evil spirits and demons, ghosts, diseases, illness, death, damage, theft, and losses; Text 2 details evil, illness and witchcraft.

Table 1: References to the Mischwesen figurines26 Figurine / material / name27 / line nos.OriginInscription or nameIncantationFunction / valuation Statues of cornel wood / apkallu- sages / ll. 41–65

‘The forest’28Being29 of life, offspring of Ur / Being of plenty, son of Nippur, good one / Being of splendor, who grew up in Eridu / Benign being, who appeared in Kullab / Fair faced being, brought up in Keš / Righteous being, exalted judge of Lagaš / Being that gives life to the slain, shade of Šuruppak (ll.54–65)

‘Evil spirit in the broad steppe’Securing blessing, plenty, life in the house / Benign Statues of tamarisk wood / ll.66–85‘The forest’‘Šamash, great lord, exalted judge…’ (may the ritual prosper)

Divine beings (lit. addressed as ‘bone of divinity’) that throw back the evil ones (line 81–83) Seven Sebettu / ll.86–96Ditto Four Lugalgirra of tamarisk / ll.97–105Ditto Seven weapon-men of tamarisk / ll.106–114

Ditto One-Cubit-Is-His- Length, tamarisk / ll.115–123

DittoRight: Who repels the evil constables Left: who causes to enter the šēdu (minor guardian deity) of good and the lamassu (minor, guardian deity) of good Four Meslam- taea, tamarisk / ll. 124–137 One Narudda, tama- risk / ll.138–142 Summary designation for all statues until now: ‘creatures of heaven’, l. 143

Creatures of Apsû / clayClay pit, line 144ffClay pit, clay pit (line 150; 151–157)Summary designation for the following statues: Statues of Ea and Marduk repelling the evil ones to be placed in the house of NN, son of NN to expel the foot of evil (ll.158–160 + 165–166) Apkallu-sages (bird, fish) 3 times 7 stat- ues / l.170–183

(ditto: repelling the evil ones, to expel the foot of evil) 2 statues of Hairies / l.184(ditto) 2 Viper / l.185(ditto) 2 Furious-Snake / l.185(ditto) 2 Big Weather-beast / l.185(ditto) 2 Mad-Lions / l. 186(ditto) 2 Bison / l.186(ditto) 2 Scorpion-Men, male and female / l. 186

(ditto) 2 Lion-Man / l. 187(ditto) 2 Lulal / l. 188(ditto) 2 Latarak / l. 189(ditto) 2 Fishman / l. 190(ditto) 2 Carpgoat / l. 190(ditto) 10 dogs / l. 191–2051: Do not reconsider, speak up / 2: Do not reconsid- er, bite / 3: Destroy his life / 4: Strong is his bark / 5: Who chases away the asakku / 6: Who overcomes the enemy / 7: Who repels the chest of evil / 8: Who bites his foe / 9: Who lets enter the good ones (mul- ticoloured dog) / 10: Who makes the evil ones go out (multicoloured) Guardians (ditto: repelling the evil ones, to expel the foot of evil)

and their role in the ritual, and what does this say about their use? After the textual analysis, I turn to the materiality and archaeological context of the figurines.

5 TEXT 1: FUNCTIONS, VALUATIONS, AND RITUAL TREATMENT OF