occur among objects of this class; they are usually elongated rectangular prisms, occasionally small cubes or fusiform (D.
358, 359,
360,
361,
362,
363, 364,
365,
366,
367, 368, 369). Unusual shapes are to be seen here and there. In the British Museum there is a lapis lazuli scarab with extended wings, a form taken over from dynastic amulets, and two pieces with triangular outline, the corners rounded.
32 The University of Michigan has a fine gray-blue chalcedony (
D. 83), a Chnoubis amulet, the ovate outline and unusual thickness of which show that it was meant to resemble the stone of a peach or a persea fruit. A few prehistoric stone axes (celts) have been found inscribed, at a much later date, with magical symbols and inscriptions.
33 The amulet makers undoubtedly regarded these “thunder-stones” as possessing magical powers in themselves, and added their own magic to that of the ancient weapon.
With some noteworthy exceptions the figures shown on magical amulets are crudely designed, and the execution is often hasty and careless. Much of the work seems to have been done with the wheel, and not infrequently it is marred by cuts that have run slightly beyond the proper outlines of the design. One who takes up the study of these objects after learning something of the glyptic art of the classical period will observe an important difference in their plan; the designs are meant to be looked at on the stone itself, not in an impression. They are not cut for seals; consequently the relations of right and left, e.g., with regard to objects carried in the hands of a god, are as they appear on the stone, and the inscriptions read from left to right. Exceptions to this practice are rare. For this reason illustrations of Graeco-Egyptian amulets should be made from casts of the stones, not from impressions. Neglect of this point has made it needlessly inconvenient to read the inscriptions on gems published in many of the older books.
The inscriptions require a fuller treatment than can be entered upon here, but some preliminary comments are in order. There are brief pious exclamations, like εἷς θεὸς Σάραπις, “one God, Sarapis,” or νικᾷ ἡ Ἶσις, “Isis conquers,” and brief prayers like the common “grant favor” or “protect the wearer from all harm.” There are occasionally phrases, sentences, or even invocations of some length, that show genuine religious feeling. A few amulets have a peculiarity that has not received proper attention. In addition to some design and inscription of the usual kind, intended to further and protect the wearer's general welfare, these pieces include a petition concerned with his relations to other people; and some of the desires thus recorded are distinctly antisocial. Such stones contradict Budge's view that “the use of the amulet ... has never been, and can never be, connected with what is commonly called `Black Magic.' ”
34 It is doubtless true that the magic of
33 To the examples cited and figured by Cook, Zeus, II, 512 f., add the remarkable celt in the Royal Ontario Museum at Toronto (published hy J. H. Iliffe, AJA 35 (1931), 304–309); also B. M. +2402, which is still, I think, unpublished. It is labeled “Prehistoric stone celt used in later Greek times as an amulet; an invocation to Bacchus is carved on the base.” I examined it in 1937, but found the inscription unintelligible. The invocation to Bacchus consists of the word ΒΑΚΧΕ alone; the remainder makes no sense.
34 Budge, Amulets, Preface, p. xxiii.