Author’s Note
The author establishes his personal relationship to ghosts and the scholarly foundation for this investigation:
Personal motivation: Despite never seeing a ghost himself, the author has been fascinated since 1971 when his friend Peter Blakebrough described seeing a “Lady in Black” at age seven
- His doctoral thesis on Babylonian exorcistic magic included cuneiform spells for driving away ghosts
- Many honest, credible people have shared ghost experiences with him when they feel safe from ridicule
Historical neglect of ancient evidence: Most ghost writers focus on medieval or modern periods, ignoring abundant ancient sources
- Greek and Latin sources are underutilized
- Biblical and Egyptian materials are rarely consulted
- Mesopotamian cuneiform sources are virtually unknown to ghost researchers
Mesopotamian primacy: Cuneiform inscriptions provide the first complete, functional ghost system in human history
- Abundant details preserved in clay tablets from over 4,000 years ago
- No existing book in any modern language covers Mesopotamian ghosts comprehensively
- These represent humanity’s first documented ghosts that can be studied through the ancients’ own words
Ghosts at the Beginning
The chapter establishes the earliest evidence for ghost beliefs and traces their origins to prehistoric burial practices:
Earliest written evidence: The word for “ghost” appears on Mesopotamian clay tablets from near 3000 BC, representing humanity’s first documented ghost beliefs
- This cuneiform evidence is incontrovertible but represents only our earliest flag-post, not the actual beginning
- Ghost beliefs must extend much further back into prehistory beyond written records
Archaeological origins in burial practices: Deliberate burial with grave goods implies three crucial beliefs about human survival after death
- Something survives of a human being after death
- That something escapes the corpse and goes somewhere else
- That something can reasonably be expected to return from wherever it went
- Burial with goods became commonplace around 50,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic
Early human burial evidence: Homo sapiens burials with deliberate grave goods appear after ~120,000 BP
- Mount Carmel site (Mugharet-es-Skhul) contained ten individuals, some deliberately buried in fetal position
- Djebel Qafzeh site near Nazareth had thirteen skeletons, one with wild boar mandible, another with bovid cranium
- These suggest early concepts of afterlife requiring provisions
Neanderthal burial practices: Famous Shanidar Cave discoveries in Iraqi Kurdistan revealed deliberate Neanderthal burials
- Initial claims of “flower people” burials were later debunked (pollen was from rodent intrusions)
- Recent excavations confirm deliberate burial between 70,000-60,000 years ago
- Neanderthals and Homo sapiens coexisted and interbred, possibly sharing burial practices
Mesopotamian ghost system phases: The author identifies two historical phases in ghost beliefs
- Phase 1: Every individual in society believed in ghosts as part of daily life (ancient Mesopotamians exemplify this)
- Phase 2: Simple belief became overlaid with religious, philosophical, and scientific thinking (modern European society exemplifies this)
Historical example of Phase 1 belief: King Ashurbanipal’s 643 BC inscription describes systematic desecration of enemy Elamite royal tombs
- Assyrians stole bones to Assyria to prevent Elamite ghosts from resting
- This was serious political warfare, not superstition - both sides accepted ghost reality
- Later, when Assyria fell in 612 BC, enemies defaced Assyrian royal portraits with surgical precision to render them powerless
Ancient Mesopotamia: Home to the First Ghosts
This chapter establishes the geographical, chronological, and linguistic context for the world’s first documented ghost system:
Geographic and archaeological foundation: Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers has yielded the richest ghost-related documentation
- Excavations since the mid-19th century have uncovered spectacular palaces, temples, and thousands of cuneiform tablets
- Clay tablets survive remarkably well in Middle Eastern conditions, preserving detailed records over millennia
- Sites range from prehistoric settlements to sophisticated cities anticipating modern Middle Eastern urban centers
Cuneiform writing system: The wedge-shaped script developed by Sumerians before 3000 BC enabled the first written ghost records
- Clay was the preferred medium for writing, building, and even conceptualized as food for the dead
- The script recorded both Sumerian (language isolate) and Akkadian (Semitic language)
- Educated scribes learned words in paired Sumerian-Akkadian dictionaries
- Key ghost terms: Sumerian “gedim” = Akkadian “eṭemmu” (ghost)
Creation mythology and ghost origins: The Babylonian Flood Story explains human spirit creation through divine sacrifice
- Goddess Nintu mixed clay with flesh and blood of sacrificed god We-ilu (who possessed intelligence/ṭēmu)
- This created the human eṭemmu (spirit) through cosmic wordplay: We (god) + ṭēmu (intelligence) = eṭemmu (spirit)
- The same eṭemmu that animates living humans becomes their ghost after death
- Ghosts were thus built into the Mesopotamian worldview from creation itself
Mesopotamian afterlife expectations: Unlike later religious systems, death brought one universal destination without moral judgment
- A 7th-century BC “Ages of Man” framework shows expected lifespans: 50 (short), 60 (mature), 70 (long), 80 (old), 90 (extreme old age)
- Dead were buried with ritual firmness expecting them to stay put
- Default burial was under house floors, with children sometimes buried within walls
- Cemetery burials were avoided as they would be populated by unowned, restless ghosts
Supernatural ecosystem: Ghosts coexisted with various non-human demonic forces (utukku demons, devils)
- Both could cause trouble for living humans, but demons were generally harder to eliminate
- The most common demon type was Sumerian udug/Akkadian utukku
- Unlike ghosts (which were once human), demons had entirely different origins and were effectively immortal
The Death and Burial of Kings
The chapter examines spectacular royal burials to understand Mesopotamian death beliefs and their implications for ghost studies:
Royal Cemetery at Ur discoveries (1926-1932): Sir Leonard Woolley’s excavations revealed 16 elite tombs with unprecedented grave goods
- Famous rulers include Meskalamdug, Queen Pu’abi, and others with rich gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and imported luxury items
- Most shocking discovery: up to 79 retainers were buried alive with each ruler, arranged peacefully around the main burial
- Evidence shows some retainers were drugged/poisoned while others had skulls bashed in from behind
- Some royal bodies underwent heat treatment to delay decay during transport
Literary parallel in “The Death of Gilgamesh”: Sumerian texts from ~1800 BC describe similar retainer burials
- Gilgamesh’s funeral involved “beloved wife, children, musician, cup-bearer, barber, palace retainers and servants” being “laid down in their places”
- The text suggests this practice originated with the charismatic hero-king Gilgamesh himself
- Followers preferred death with their leader rather than life without him, similar to Alexander the Great’s impact
- This explains why retainer burial appears only at Ur and nowhere else in Mesopotamian archaeology
King Ur-Namma’s death and Netherworld arrival (2095 BC): The Sumerian text “Urnamma A” describes royal death as a journey
- Dead king travels by chariot to Netherworld gates where he’s welcomed with banquets
- Ur-Namma makes diplomatic offerings to Netherworld gods, especially Queen Ereshkigal
- He receives appointment as judge alongside Gilgamesh, dealing with cases of traitors and deserters
- The text reveals knowledge that Netherworld food and drink were “bitter” and “salty”
Moment of death rituals: Early Sumerian texts (c.1900 BC) detail precise death procedures
- Death is formally declared with “His wind has blown away” - the last audible breath
- The eṭemmu (ghost) remains trapped in the body until released by proper ritual and formula
- Required elements: clay effigy of deceased, special ghost-chair, grave goods (especially food/drink)
- Administrative records show 8-day process from “seizing the wind” to final ghost liberation
Fear of premature burial: Sumerian ritual reflects humanity’s earliest documented fear of being buried alive
- Two-part burial process ensured actual death before interment
- 7th-century BC Assyrian omen warns: “If a dead man in his grave comes back to life with people nearby…”
- This sophisticated understanding of death vs. unconsciousness was not adopted by later Mesopotamian cultures
Everyday Houses, Burials and Ghosts
This chapter explores how ordinary Mesopotamians lived with ghosts in their daily domestic environment:
Housing and burial integration: Mesopotamian domestic architecture directly facilitated ghost encounters
- Family dead were typically buried under house floors, making graves accessible for offerings
- Extended families of 10-15+ people lived in central courtyard houses with multiple room suites
- Common house plan: rooms facing courtyard (tarbaṣu = “animal pen”) with single outside entrance
- Oldest son typically inherited father’s house and continued family ghost obligations
Seven types of Mesopotamian burial: Archaeological evidence shows diverse burial practices
- Wall burial (infants/children), earth/pit burial (wrapped in reed mats), shaft graves leading to chambers
- Jar burial (single or double jars), sherd graves (covered with pottery pieces), ceramic sarcophagi
- Stone/brick cists and chambers, with most common being simple pit burial under floors
- Not all family members could be buried domestically due to disease, space, or other factors
Grave goods philosophy: Archaeological evidence reveals consistent belief in material afterlife needs
- Standard adult burial goods: pottery, vessels, tools, weapons, jewelry, seals, figurines, amulets
- Jericho Tomb B35 (1750-1550 BC) preserved organic materials showing wooden furniture, baskets of food, meat joints
- Grave goods represent “pleasant afterlife” expectation contradicting literary descriptions of dust-eating misery
- Even minimal goods implied the deceased would need familiar comforts in the next world
Tomb-building omens: Extensive omen collections advised when tomb construction was safe
- “If a City” Tablet XVI covers all 13 months: only 4 months were favorable for tomb building
- Daily omens were even more restrictive: only 3 out of 30 days were considered safe
- Typical bad prediction: building in month V means “evil/death will be regular in the man’s house”
- These warnings seem impractically restrictive, suggesting they functioned more as guidelines than absolute prohibitions
Tomb protection inscriptions: Rare cuneiform tomb texts reveal anxiety about future disturbance
- 18th-century BC inscription pleads for future discoverers to restore rather than destroy the tomb
- Includes blessing: “Above, may his omens be propitious! Below, may his ghosts drink pure water!”
- Demonstrates permanent worry about peaceful post-mortem existence and proper treatment of family ghosts
- Contrasts with more aggressive threats invoking Netherworld gods against tomb violators
Living with Ghosts
The chapter details how Mesopotamians routinely coexisted with ghosts as part of normal daily life:
Ghosts as normal life reality: Mesopotamians took ghosts entirely for granted rather than merely “believing” in them
- Ghosts were treated with considerable sympathy and tolerance since many were literally family members
- Only when ghostly behavior became seriously problematic did people seek professional intervention
- The system shows remarkable humanity - ghosts had understandable reasons for their restlessness
Two categories of restless ghosts: Ghost problems stemmed from identifiable causes
- Ghost rights violations: neglect of food/water offerings, failure to pronounce their names, lack of proper burial care
- Circumstances of death: premature, violent, or unresolved endings leaving ghosts with unfinished business
- The first category could be remedied through proper offerings; the second represented permanent problems
Practical ghost magic example: 8th-century BC tablet from Assur shows standard ghost-banishing procedure
- Patient suffers physical symptoms: persistent pain, paralysis, mental disturbance from unidentified ghost
- Ritual involves evening offerings to Shamash, morning bread/date offerings, silver bribery for divine attention
- Extensive ghost identification list covers all possible types: battlefield dead, drowning victims, abandoned corpses, neglected family ghosts
- Final resort: water libation from dog skull if standard procedures fail
Comprehensive ghost typology: Magical texts catalog specific ghost types encountered by practitioners
- Group 1 (Neglected ghosts): those with no grave, no caretaker, no offerings, forgotten by family
- Group 2 (Violent deaths): battlefield casualties, murder victims, drowning/burning/accident victims, disease deaths
- Special attention to women’s ghosts: virgins, childbirth deaths, nursing mothers - considered permanently inconsolable
- Each type required different magical approaches based on their specific grievances
Ghost omens and diagnostic signs: “If a City” tablets provide detailed predictions for ghost encounters
- Familiar vs. unfamiliar ghost distinction crucial: family ghosts vs. complete strangers posed different threats
- Time of encounter mattered: evening, midnight, daylight, morning ghost appearances had different implications
- Hearing ghosts was always more dangerous than seeing them - suggested the living were being summoned to join them
- Specific omen: “If a ghost enters a man’s ear” led to family deaths, while multiple ghosts indicated divine punishment
Ghost Magic 1: Words and Deeds
This chapter explores the practical magical procedures Mesopotamians used to combat troublesome ghosts:
Types of ghost intrusion: Ghosts could affect victims both externally and internally
- External harassment: stalking, following, crowding, persistent unwanted presence
- Internal possession: entry through ears, forming unwanted “marriages” requiring mock divorces to remove
- Most dangerous ghosts could literally invade the body and wreak psychological/physical havoc
- Symptoms included paralysis, convulsions, mental disturbance (“alteration of mind” - šinīt ṭēmi)
Uninscribed amulets for ghost protection: Simple plant and substance amulets worn around neck
- Dream-ghost protection: kasû plant, atā’išu (“dog’s-tongue”), soiled rag sewn in dead cow hide with dormouse tendon
- Other materials: fish oil, sulfur, naphtha, minerals, human finger bones, skull dust, ape hair, lion skin dust
- Juniper rubbed on feet before touching ground in morning as alternative ghost deterrent
- These represented cheapest, most accessible ghost protection for ordinary people
Inscribed anti-ghost amulets: Written amulets required qualified scribes but offered greater power
- Two 4th-century BC clay beads from Sippar with identical message: “Spell of God Asalluḫi: Ghost! Do not keep coming in!”
- Mass-produced amulets suggest regular demand for ghost protection services
- Ancient spells in archaic Sumerian continued in use for over 2,000 years despite linguistic obsolescence
Foreign language ghost magic: Elamite-language spells represent earliest recorded “mumbo-jumbo”
- Four-line incantations in Elamite (ancient Iranian language) used against ghosts for nearly 2,000 years
- Words like “zinzilaḫ” derive from actual Elamite administrative records (dog-handler named Zimzilaḫ from 2042 BC)
- Ancient Sumerian record-keeping tablets later reinterpreted as magical texts when their meaning was forgotten
- This demonstrates how practical documents could transform into mystical power words through historical misunderstanding
Anti-ghost portfolio from royal library: Tablet K 2175+ from Nineveh contains comprehensive ghost-banishing procedures
- “That’s enough!” ritual: cedar oil, sulfur, bitumen preparation smeared on doors, beds, furniture to create barriers
- Protective magic circle with thorn barriers and seven-fold incantation recitations
- “Divorcing a dead partner” elaborate ritual for ghosts that had formed inappropriate attachments to living victims
- Procedures include figurine magic, substitute offerings, and formal “divorce” ceremonies witnessed by gods
Ghost Magic 2: Pictures and Conversations
This chapter examines illustrated magical tablets showing how Mesopotamian exorcists created figurines to combat ghosts:
Illustrated ghost magic tablets: Three cuneiform tablets contain line drawings showing figurine construction
- Earliest version from Hittite capital Boghazköy (1450 BC) preserves Mesopotamian tradition in detailed written description
- Later Assyrian (7th century BC) and Babylonian (6th century BC) versions show actual drawings of the figures
- These represent some of the rarest cuneiform tablets - illustrated manuals are extremely uncommon
The “wife” figurine ritual: Male ghosts could be distracted by providing them with attractive female companions
- Detailed construction: reed section with wax face, yellow mouth, pierced arms, carved navel/vulva, hair wrapped around twig
- Dressed in everyday sashes, cloak, carnelian necklace, silver diadem - made irresistibly appealing
- Three-day “marriage” ceremony where patient treats figurine as wife while real wife stays away
- Ghost marries figurine, they’re provided with provisions and sent down drain-hole facing sunset
Treatment for “alteration of mind”: Severe mental disturbance caused by ghost entering through ear
- Symptoms: personality change, contradictory speech, excessive talking, affected intelligence
- Treatment involved two figurines: one for patient’s bedside, another (Abaknana) representing substitute king
- Abaknana figurine identified as King Nabonidus (last Babylonian ruler, 556-539 BC) based on royal regalia in drawing
- Ritual culminates in formal “marriage” ceremony between figurines who then depart together to Netherworld
Historical identification of Abaknana: Evidence suggests figurine represents the “mad” King Nabonidus
- Name “Abaknana” means “Who has done this, O Sin?” in Sumerian - reflects Nabonidus’s devotion to moon god Sin
- Nabonidus was widely regarded as insane for abandoning Babylon, living in Arabian desert, neglecting Marduk worship
- Persian conqueror Cyrus’s propaganda described Nabonidus using Akkadian word for “madness”
- Mad King figurine became standard treatment for severe ghost-induced mental disturbance
“Any Evil” figurine drawings: Abstract evil personified in anthropomorphic form with lion head
- Made from dust of seven abandoned locations (town, house, temple, grave, foundations, canal, road) mixed with ox blood
- Represents insurance-policy approach: covers “anything else we haven’t thought of” in ghost/demon identification
- Three-day roof ritual with barley gruel, beer, flour, juniper censers under divine supervision
- Patient addresses sun god Shamash requesting legal verdict and release from ghostly “Obligation”
The Descents of Inanna and Ishtar and Other Netherworld Stories
This chapter analyzes the famous literary accounts of Netherworld journeys, distinguishing them from everyday ghost beliefs:
Literary vs. practical ghost traditions: The famous Netherworld literature represents specialized mythological narratives, not daily beliefs
- Stories like Ishtar’s Descent created the iconic “House of Darkness” description with dust-eating, wing-clad inhabitants
- These literary accounts cannot be taken as models for ordinary Mesopotamian afterlife expectations
- Archaeological evidence suggests a “pleasant afterlife” contradicting the literary misery of dust and clay consumption
- Common burial practices were not based on literary descriptions but on independent folk traditions
Inanna’s Descent (Sumerian version): Goddess of love/war descends to Netherworld in seasonal fertility myth
- Inanna abandons heavenly responsibilities, takes seven divine “me’s” (cosmic powers), instructs helper Ninshubur
- Stripped of seven garments/ornaments at seven gates, arrives naked before sister Queen Ereshkigal
- Killed by Anunnaki judges, hung on hook for three days until rescued by creatures made from fingernail dirt
- Must provide substitute - chooses lover Dumuzi who becomes seasonal Netherworld resident (June/July to December/January)
Ishtar’s Descent (Akkadian version): Streamlined retelling of Sumerian story for Assyrian royal court
- Opens with famous “House of Darkness” passage used in multiple Netherworld texts
- Ishtar threatens to “raise up the dead to devour the living” if denied entrance - reveals finite life force concept
- Netherworld entrance located at Kutha (Tell Ibrahim), Nergal’s temple city 25 miles northeast of Babylon
- Annual taklimtu ritual in Nineveh involved bathing/anointing Dumuzi statue, probably accompanied by story recitation
Nergal and Ereshkigal: Explains how death god Nergal became Ereshkigal’s husband and co-ruler
- Earlier Amarna version (14th century BC): Nergal insults Ereshkigal’s messenger, forced to descend and apologize
- Later first-millennium version: Seven days/nights of lovemaking, complex negotiations, threats of releasing dead
- Both versions establish Nergal’s legitimacy as Netherworld king through marriage alliance with established queen
- Shows development of Mesopotamian theological understanding over centuries
Ningishzida’s escape: Rare account of successful divine rescue from Netherworld
- God Ningishzida taken to Netherworld for unknown reasons, faces judgment before Anunna gods
- Father Ningirida successfully negotiates release by offering silver to make life-sized statue as substitute
- Demonstrates substitution principle: Netherworld rulers would accept effigies in place of actual persons
- This precedent underlies magical figurine rituals used by living humans to escape ghostly persecution
Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld
This chapter examines the Sumerian epic that provides the most detailed ancient account of Netherworld conditions:
Early Gilgamesh as gang leader: The story begins with young Gilgamesh as an orphaned street tough, not yet king
- Lives with carpenter’s wife and daughter as surrogate family, leads gang of fatherless boys
- Plays violent street game (similar to tipcat) using equipment carved from Inanna’s sacred tree
- Game involves mounted human polo with dangerous wooden puck and stick, causing injuries to participants
- Widows and maidens complain about the rough treatment of their sons and brothers
The trick and Enkidu’s descent: Gilgamesh manipulates his servant Enkidu into retrieving “fallen” game equipment
- Game gear mysteriously “falls” into Netherworld during protests - likely deliberately dropped by Gilgamesh
- Enkidu eagerly volunteers to retrieve items, suggesting hidden knowledge about Netherworld access
- Gilgamesh provides detailed survival advice: don’t wear clean clothes, don’t use perfume, don’t make noise
- Enkidu deliberately violates all instructions, gets trapped below by universal Netherworld prohibition
Enkidu’s rescue and testimony: Sun god Utu creates “chink” in Netherworld for ghostly escape
- Enkidu returns as utukku (phantom) rather than eṭemmu (ghost), indicating his semi-divine nature
- Akkadian version specifies he’s brought up “like a phantom” (zaqīqu), emphasizing ethereal state
- Extensive question-and-answer session reveals detailed Netherworld social structure
- Key insight: afterlife quality depends on number of sons left behind (1 son = misery, 7 sons = divine status)
Netherworld social hierarchy revealed: Enkidu’s report shows merit-based afterlife system
- Sexual activity impossible (genitals rot/fill with dust), emphasizing procreation importance during life
- Proper family relationships crucial: disrespecting parents leads to eternal thirst
- Occupational casualties get appropriate punishments: lion victims still cry “Oh my hand! Oh my foot!”
- Burned dead cannot rest (smoke ascends to sky), unburied dead eat street scraps
Gilgamesh’s true motivation: The epic’s climax reveals Gilgamesh’s real purpose
- Final question: “Did you see the place where my father and mother sit?” - reveals he’s an orphan seeking parents
- Parents drink “filthy water from place of massacre” - terrible conditions motivating Gilgamesh’s subsequent adventures
- Entire elaborate scheme designed to learn fate of dead parents, not recover sports equipment
- Establishes proper funeral rites for parents, transitions from morbid preoccupation to heroic life quest
An Assyrian Prince in the Netherworld
This chapter presents the unique account of a living human’s journey to the Netherworld through vision and dreams:
Prince Kummaya’s corruption: Royal prince (likely Shamash-metu-uballiṭ, son of King Esarhaddon) falls into systematic corruption
- Exploits state diviners, redirects officials to supervise personal estate, accumulates vast wealth through bribes
- Opens restricted areas for “the Scribe’s son,” betrays palace secrets, ignores proper royal behavioral standards
- Public sympathizes initially but eventually protests against his tax-funded banquets and destructive behavior
- Court decides intervention necessary - special Netherworld ritual arranged as punishment/purification
Temple ritual and vision preparation: Kummaya enters Nergal temple at Tarbiṣu for overnight purification
- Burns juniper incense, makes prayers that anger rather than appease Netherworld deities
- Goddess Allatu rejects his request to enter Netherworld alive - only possible on day of destined death
- Queen Ereshkigal appears in dream, criticizes him for bypassing proper sun god Shamash protocols
- Kummaya promises restitution, offers to “turn the pig upside-down” (possibly meaning reform completely)
Netherworld parade of powers: Vision reveals 17 major Netherworld deities and demons in detailed descriptions
- Namtar (intelligence officer) holds victim by hair with dagger - poses reminiscent of Egyptian iconography
- Death has dragon head with human hands, Evil Genie tramples crocodile - more Egyptian influences
- Complete roster includes ferrymen, gatekeepers, oath-personifications, and specialized demons
- Three figures show clear Egyptian characteristics (black face, crocodile-trampling, bird heads) - unprecedented in Mesopotamian sources
Confrontation with King Nergal: Prince brought before Netherworld ruler in throne room illuminated by lightning
- Nergal initially furious, threatens death with viper-like scepter for insulting Queen Ereshkigal
- Vizier Ishum intercedes: “Let him go so peoples of all lands will hear about your glorification!”
- Nergal reveals corpse of “Proud Shepherd” (dead Assyrian king) tended by three Elamite gods
- Commands Kummaya to remember this experience and warns against future transgressions
The scribe’s true purpose: Narrative concludes with revelation that corrupt court scribe engineered entire experience
- “That scribe” who had “accepted bribes and occupied his father’s post” uses Kummaya’s ordeal for personal expiation
- Likely identifies as Urad-Gula, son of Adad-shuma-uṣur, disgraced court exorcist seeking reinstatement
- Sophisticated manipulation: used knowledge of Kummaya’s psychology, palace secrets, and ritual expertise
- Represents early example of psychological manipulation for personal gain - ancient precursor to Iago-type character
The Delicate Art of Necromancy
This chapter documents the specialized practice of deliberately summoning ghosts for consultation and information:
Necromantic terminology and specialists: Ancient dictionaries preserve complete vocabulary for ghost-summoning
- Sumerian “buru” = Akkadian “šûlû ša eṭemmi” (to bring up a ghost)
- Multiple specialist types: lú-gedim-ma (ghost person/generalist), mušēlû eṭemmi (ghost-raiser), naršindu (black magician-necromancer)
- Female specialists included mušēlītum (female ghost-raiser), suggesting women preferred for summoning female ghosts
- Terminology exists in Sumerian, indicating necromantic practice reached back into 3rd millennium BC
Old Assyrian private necromancy (1950-1850 BC): Business correspondence from Kanesh reveals casual ghost consultation
- Letter from Assyrian merchants complains about unresponsive business partner
- Writers claim to have consulted “female diviners and ghosts” for advice about the situation
- Shows necromancy was familiar, accessible practice integrated into normal business decision-making
- Even if partly rhetorical, demonstrates accepted reality of ghost consultation in commercial context
Royal necromancy under King Esarhaddon (669 BC): Court letter documents consultation with dead queen’s ghost
- Crown Prince Ashurbanipal (later king) secretly summons grandmother’s ghost to confirm his succession rights
- Dead queen’s spirit blesses him: “gods Assur and Shamash ordained me Crown Prince of Assyria”
- Timing suggests succession was disputed after Esarhaddon’s death, requiring ghostly testimony as political support
- Ritual must have occurred in queen’s tomb chamber with utmost secrecy to avoid political scandal
Necromantic procedures from Nineveh manual: 7th-century BC tablet K 2779 provides detailed ghost-summoning instructions
- Primary spell “nirḫab nirḫab gedim” uses special oil mixture applied to practitioner’s face
- Ingredients include snake-tallow, honey, frog parts, animal hair, grasshopper wing, goose marrow in wine/milk
- Result: “You will see the ghost and he will speak with you” - promises both visual and auditory contact
- Protective counter-rituals included to “avert evil in ghost’s cry” since hearing ghosts was inherently dangerous
Babylonian skull necromancy: 6th-century BC Manual 2 describes sophisticated ghost communication through human skulls
- Incantation appeals to “skull of all skulls” asking “he who is within the skull answer me!”
- Oil preparation left overnight under stars, applied to actual skull of desired deceased person in morning
- Alternative: oil could be applied to ghost figurine or “namtaru” figure if skull unavailable
- Procedure explicitly for “bringing up ghost from darkness” and “asking questions” - classic necromantic consultation
The Biblical World
This chapter traces Mesopotamian ghost concepts into Hebrew Bible traditions and ancient Middle Eastern cultures:
Hebrew Bible’s complicated ghost evidence: Old Testament simultaneously condemns and documents widespread ghost beliefs
- Deuteronomy 18:9-14 lists “abhorrent practices” including consulting ghosts, spirits, and oracles from dead
- These practices were established in Canaan before Hebrew arrival, identical to long-entrenched Mesopotamian traditions
- Biblical writers suppress detailed information about ghost activities while inadvertently confirming their prevalence
- Translation inconsistencies across versions (RV, NSRV) reflect theological discomfort with ghost material
Hebrew ghost terminology clarified: Biblical words for supernatural entities have been mistranslated
- Rephaim (shades) appears in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs as standard term for dead spirits in Sheol
- Same word appears in Ugaritic (rpum) and Phoenician texts, indicating shared ancient Middle Eastern ghost concept
- ‘ôb clearly means “ghost” (as in Isaiah 29:4: voice “as a ghost from the Netherworld”)
- yiddêʿonî probably means “demons” rather than “familiar spirits” or “wizards” - covers non-human evil spirits
King Saul’s necromancy at Endor (1 Samuel 28): Most detailed ancient necromantic account outside Mesopotamia
- Saul had “expelled ghosts and spirits from the land” but secretly seeks Ghost-Mistress (ba’alat ‘ôb) when facing Philistine crisis
- Professional necromancer at Endor operates established service - Saul’s servants know exactly where to go
- Samuel’s ghost appears, Ghost-Mistress is shocked at successful summoning, Saul recognizes prophet by his robe
- Samuel’s complaint “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” shows realistic ghost psychology
Endor as Netherworld access point: The location name provides crucial evidence for ancient ghost beliefs
- En-dor = “Well of Generation” suggests established portal between worlds of living and dead
- Parallels Babylonian Netherworld access at Kutha and Assyrian installation at Tarbiṣu
- Name implies belief that spirits of dead remained in Netherworld until required to animate new babies
- Shows shared ancient Middle Eastern conception of finite life force requiring recycling between death and birth
Jewish necromantic continuity: Talmudic and medieval sources show unbroken tradition from biblical times
- Mishnah describes ba’al ‘ôb practitioners using ventriloquism and “skull consultation”
- 15th-century rabbi Bar-Tenura describes skull necromancy: “takes skull after flesh decomposes, offers incense, asks future”
- Medieval Jewish spell provides complete necromantic procedure with angel names, oil/honey offerings, myrtle wand
- Demonstrates persistence of ancient Mesopotamian-style necromantic techniques through millennia of Jewish magical tradition
A Brief Enquiry as to What the Inhabitants of Mesopotamia Believed About Their Netherworld and the Ultimate Fate of Those Who Languished in Same
This final chapter synthesizes Mesopotamian cosmology and afterlife beliefs:
Cosmic structure: Three-tiered universe with Heaven above, Earth middle, Netherworld below
- Three Heavens: Upper (gods), Middle (sky/stars), Lower (visible celestial bodies)
- Earth conceived as round disc surrounded by cosmic river, Babylon at center
- Netherworld also had three levels: Upper (sometimes Igigi gods), Middle (Apsû/sweet water), Lower (600 Anunnaki judges)
- Sun god Shamash traveled through Netherworld nightly, presumably illuminating the darkness below
Netherworld geography and access: Underworld conceived as great walled city with multiple gates
- River Ḫubur must be crossed by ferry (boatman Humuṭ-tabal) to reach destination
- Seven Gates with progressive security, Gate of Captives, various specialized entrances
- Multiple names: kur (mountain/foreign land), ki (place), Land-of-No-Return, Irkalla, Ganzir
- Secret routes known to gods: “chinks” and “crevices” allowed unauthorized ghost escapes
Life force recycling system: Evidence suggests Mesopotamians believed in finite, recyclable life essence
- Ishtar’s threat to “raise up dead to devour living” implies delicate balance between life and death
- Academic interpretation of “baked brick” omen reveals underlying principle: new life requires new death
- System not reincarnation but recycling: eṭemmu spirits wait in Netherworld until needed for new births
- Netherworld gates function both to keep dead in and let appropriate spirits out for reanimation
No moral judgment system: Mesopotamian afterlife lacked ethical evaluation unlike later religious traditions
- All dead went to same destination regardless of moral behavior during life
- No punishment-based system, no Heaven vs. Hell choice, no reward for virtue
- Literary Netherworld descriptions represent specialized mythological narratives, not universal expectations
- Archaeological grave goods suggest “pleasant afterlife” expectations contradicting literary dust-and-clay imagery
Implications for ghost behavior: Understanding of cosmic recycling explains ghost restlessness
- Ghosts weren’t condemned to eternal misery but waiting for reintegration into life cycle
- Proper offerings and remembrance maintained ghosts’ connection to living world
- Neglected ghosts became restless because they were cut off from both worlds
- System required divine regulation to prevent chaos from uncontrolled spirit release
Afterword
The author concludes by connecting ancient Mesopotamian ghost beliefs to modern paranormal experiences:
Universal human ghost belief: Conviction that spirits survive death is “hard-wired at deepest level from the start”
- Belief in ghosts represents “inextricable” part of human nature, persisting across millennia and cultures
- Modern ghost experiences represent “contemporary expression of age-old belief system”
- Ancient Mesopotamian “ghostly innocence” - simple, unquestioning acceptance - contrasts with modern theological/scientific overlay
Continuity of ghost behavior: Ancient and modern ghosts show remarkably similar patterns
- Central conception: ghosts remain restless due to unhappiness, seeking closure for injustice/violence
- Both ancient and modern ghosts return to scenes of former life or premature death
- Ancient Babylonian understanding of ghost psychology matches contemporary paranormal accounts
- Professional ghost-removal specialists existed then as now, using established procedures
Modern skepticism vs. ancient acceptance: Two phases of ghost belief across history
- Phase 1 (ancient): Ghosts taken completely for granted as normal life facts, no scoffing or disbelief
- Phase 2 (modern): Simple belief overlaid with religious, philosophical, scientific questioning
- Disbelief requires sustaining four simultaneous positions: nothing there, no ghosts exist, witness saw nothing, witness lies
- Author argues dismissing all cross-cultural ghost testimony requires implausible conspiracy or mass delusion theories
Spirit-ghost unity: Mesopotamian eṭemmu demonstrates fundamental unity of spirit and ghost concepts
- Same essence animates living humans (spirit) and survives death (ghost) - “they were one and the same thing”
- Modern religious systems accept spirit survival but inconsistently deny ghost existence
- Author suggests: “dead person’s spirit is called a ghost simply and only when it happens to be visible”
- Ancient recycling concept offers “unexpected comfort” - finite life resource circulates eternally through cosmic regulation
User’s Guide: Telling Your Ghost from Your Demon
This technical appendix explains the cuneiform signs used to write Mesopotamian ghost and demon words:
Sign structure analysis: Complex cuneiform signs GEDIM (ghost) and UDUG (demon) differ by single crucial element
- GEDIM = 1/3 + IŠ x TAR (one-third + female divinity)
- UDUG = 2/3 + IŠ x TAR (two-thirds + female divinity)
- Fraction components shown by number of vertical wedges on horizontal base: two wedges = 1/3, three wedges = 2/3
- Interior signs IŠ and TAR together spell iš-tar meaning “goddess” or “female divinity”
Creation mythology confirmation: Sign analysis perfectly matches Mesopotamian creation beliefs
- Human eṭemmu (ghost/spirit) contains 1/3 divine intelligence + 2/3 physical matter (clay/flesh/blood)
- After death, 2/3 physical returns to earth, 1/3 divine essence becomes ghost
- Demon utukku contains 2/3 divine intelligence + 1/3 unknown substance
- Higher divine content explains demons’ immortality vs. human mortality
Hidden meanings in signs: Alternative readings reveal additional ghost characteristics
- IŠ (pronounced saḫar = “dust”) + TAR (pronounced sila = “street”) = ghost condemned to eating street refuse
- Reflects fate of abandoned ghosts with no family providers, forced to scavenge urban garbage
- Sign GEDIM₂ (alternative spelling) = U (ear) + BAR (open) = “ear-opener”
- Confirms learned tradition that malevolent ghosts entered victims through unguarded ears during sleep