ARAM, 11-12 (1999-2000), 253-268E.M. YAMAUCHI 253 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS: LEAD ROLLS AND MAGIC BOWLS EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI ORIGIN OF THE MANDAIC SCRIPT The earliest documents of the Mandaeans are incantations, written on lead rolls and on terracotta bowls. These texts have been found in southern Iraq and south-western Iran. The bowls are generally dated between A.D. 600 and 800;1 some of the lead rolls are dated earlier. The scripts on both types of magical texts are quite similar. There have been four studies on the possible origins and affinities of the distinctive Mandaic script to somewhat similar Nabataean, Elymaean, and Characenian scripts. The Nabataean script was used by the famous Arab traders of Petra in the west. The Elymaean script was used in the area around Susa, earlier called Elam, in the 2nd century A.D.2 The Characenian script was used by the people of the important port of Charax Spasinu at the head of the Persian Gulf. The coins from Characene date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.3 P. W. COXON P. W. Coxon believes that the Mandaic script in its earliest stage had adopted features of cursive writing, while the Elymaean script is an archaic lapidary script. He concludes that “the corpus of the comparative evidence points to the primacy of the Elymaean over against the Mandaean forms of the letters and that the latter seem to be stylized reductions of the older Elymaean orthogra- phy.”4 1 Some scholars would favour an earlier date between 350 and 500 A.D., according to Kaufman, S., “A Unique Bowl from Nippur,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32, (1973), 173, n. 19. 2 Henning, W. B., “The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak”, Asia Major, new series, 2, (1952), 151-78; Bivar, A. D. and Shaked, S.,”The Inscriptions at Shimbar”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, (1964), 265-90. 3 Lidzbarski, M., “Die Münzen der Characene mit mandäischen Legenden,” Zeitschrift für Numismatik, 33, (1922), 83-96. 4 Coxon, P. W., “Script Analysis and Mandaean Origins”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15, in the צ Coxon’s incredible gaffe on p. 28,”I was unable to detect examples of .29 ,(1970) amulet, and apparently the magic bowls are devoid of the letter,” which was apparently based only on Montgomery’s three Mandaic bowls, does not inspire much confidence in his scholar- ship. 254 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS R. MACUCH R. Macuch, who on other grounds believes in the early western origin of the Mandaeans,5 asserts that the Mandaic script closely resembles that of the Nabataeans. He also holds that the Mandaic script is earlier than both the Elymaean and the Characenian scripts. Macuch maintains that the Mandaic script was already being used in southern Mesopotamia in the second century A.D.6 He wants to take seriously the claim in a colophon that the first redaction of the Mandaean liturgical texts dates to A.D. 272.7 J. NAVEH J. Naveh, on the other hand, does not believe that the Mandaeans derived their ligatures from the Nabataeans. He asserts categorically: “1) There is no connection at all between the Nabataean and the Mandaic scripts. 2) The Elymaic script is less developed than Mandaic.”8 His conclusions are diametri- cally opposed to those of Macuch’s: “At any rate palaeographic criteria sup- port neither the theory of a western origin of the Mandaeans nor the existence of the sect in Khuzistan in the second century A.D.”9 A. KLUGKIST In the most recent study, A. Klugkist agrees that the old Mandaic, Elymaic, and Characenian scripts must be closely related. But he disagrees with the con- clusions of Macuch, on the one hand, and of Naveh, on the other hand, with respect to the origins of the Mandaic relative particle d- which is also found in the Elymaic inscriptions. This particle is formed by the ligature of z + y. Macuch concluded that the presence of this ligature in Mandaic and in Elymaic proves that the “Elymaean inscriptions are nothing else but Mandaic in both script and language.”10 Naveh believes that the Mandaic particle was borrowed from an Elymaic prototype and not the other way around. Klugkist holds that it is impossible to prove derivation in either direction.11 5 For my critique of Macuch’s arguments, see Yamauchi, E. M., Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 68-71; for Macuch’s re- sponse, see his review essay in Christentum am Roten Meer, (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973), II, 54-73. 6 Macuch, R., “The Origins of the Mandaeans and Their Script”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 16, (1971), 174-92. 7 On Mandaic colophons see: Buckley, J. J., “The Colophons in The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 51, (1992), 33-50; idem, “The Colophons in H. Petermann’s Sidra Rabba”, JRAS, third series, 5.1, (1994), 21-38. 8 Naveh, J., “The Origins of the Mandaic Script”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien- tal Research, 198, (1970), 33. 9 Naveh, “The Origins”, 37. 10 Macuch, “The Origin of the Mandaeans”, 187. 11 Klugkist, A., “The Origin of the Mandaic Script,” in H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis, (Groningen: Egbert, 1986), 115. E.M. YAMAUCHI 255 Klugkist agrees with Coxon in denying Macuch’s conclusion that one can claim the presence of the Mandaeans in southern Mesopotamian in the second century A.D. on the basis of script analysis, a scepticism also shared by Kurt Rudolph.12 But he disagrees with Coxon’s view that the Mandaic script is de- rived from the Elymaic. Klugkist also disagrees with Macuch’s derivation of the Mandaic script from the Nabataean, but he does not go as far as Naveh, who asserts that “there is no connection at all between the Nabataean and the Mandaic scripts.”13 Klugkist’s final conclusion is: “On the basis of script analysis one can only state that the old Mandaic, Elymaic and Characenian scripts are the representatives of one group, one script-tradition, which existed in the second/third century A.D. in southern Mesopotamia and Khuzistan.”14 LEAD ROLLS In the ancient world, it was a widespread practice to write amulets or curses on thin sheets of metal, often silver, copper, or lead. In the Greek world the most common curses against individual enemies were those placed on thin lead sheets (commonly known as tabellae defixiones), which were then rolled up and pierced with a nail. These were then deposited in wells or graves for easier access to the infernal spirits. Such tablets were widely used for over a thousand years from the 5th century B.C. to the 6th century A.D.15 J. Naveh and S. Shaked have included a number of Aramaic amulets inscribed on sheets of gold, silver, bronze and copper in their two volumes of Amulets and Magic Bowls.16 M. LIDZBARSKI One of the earliest of Mandaic texts is a long lead amulet of 278 lines pub- lished by Mark Lidzbarski in 1909.17 I included it in my comprehensive study of Mandaic incantation texts.18 Lidzbarski dated it to A.D. 400 on orthographic grounds. Lady E. S. Drower thought that such lead strips would be immersed in water, which would then be drunk.19 12 Rudolph, K., Die Mandäer I: Das Mandäerproblem, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 30. 13 Naveh, “The Origins of the Mandaic Script”, 33. 14 Klugkist, “The Origin of the Mandaic Script”, 116. 15 See Yamauchi, E. M., “Magic in the Biblical World”, Tyndale Bulletin, 34, (1983), 184- 85. 16 Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. Amulets and Magic Bowls (rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987); idem, Magic Spells and Formulae (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993). 17 Lizbarski, M., “Ein mandäisches Amulett”, Florilegium ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à M. Melchior de Vogüé, (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1909), 349-73. 18 Yamauchi, E. M., Mandaic Incantation Texts, [hereafter MIT] (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1967), 234-55. 19 Drower, E. S., “A Mandaean Bibliography”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , (1953), 38. Holes in other lead amulets indicate that they were to be worn, though made of lead; they must have been quite heavy. 256 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS The dialogue formula in this lead amulet is without doubt based on the Marduk-Ea formula of Sumerian magic.20 The lists of cursers, which included father and mother, prostitutes and singing girls, etc., are based on Akkadian prototypes, particularly the Surpu texts as pointed out by Jonas Greenfield.21 The comprehensive list of maleficent spirits is also structured after similar lists in Akkadian incantations, with many of the evil spirits descended directly from Babylonian prototypes.22 First and foremost are the “liliths,” who are the lin- eal descendants of the lilitu, succubi or female spirits who mated with men at night and tormented women and killed infants.23 Sometimes in the centre of the bowl these are depicted as bound. E. C. D. Hunter has analyzed the iconog- raphy of these images.24 R. MACUCH Macuch would date Lidzbarski’s amulet to the 3rd or even the 2nd cent. A.D.25 In 1967 and 1968 R. Macuch published four lead amulets.26 The first lead roll that Macuch published he would date to the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. The occurrence of an angel named Estaqlos both in the section of the Canonical Prayerbook assigned to this early date and in this lead roll is the basis of his dating. He dated the second and third rolls to the end of the pre- Islamic period, and the fourth roll to the Islamic period.