The Mesopotamian god image, from womb to tomb.

• Author: Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor

From the end of the third millennium B.C. onward, Mesopotamian gods were worshipped in their temples in corporeal manifestations as living, anthropomorphic cult statues. Given the centrality of these statues to the cult, it may be assumed that a ritual for assimilating the finite, physical image to the transcendent, intangible god and transforming the humanly manufactured icon into a living deity was one of the most significant practices in Mesopotamian religion. In fact, there were two such rituals that worked in tandem--one called "mouth-washing" (mis pi; l u h. k a; k a. l u h. u. d a) and another designated "mouth-opening" (pit pi; k a. d u h. u. d a). "Mouth-opening," done by application to the mouth (and nose?) of tasty and fragrant substances (honey, ghee, cedar and cypress [resin?]), had the purpose of enlivening and sensitizing the god, and enabling it to eat food and smell incense, while "mouth-washing," done with water enhanced with numerous purifying agents and collected in a special vessel, was aimed at achieving total purity and permitting the god to assume his position in the company of the other gods.

The mouth-washing ritual has been known to Assyriologists for slightly over a century, ever since Heinrich Zimmern published parts of it in 1901 (BBR II 31-37, 38, 39). A separate mouth-opening ritual is rare, and since opening the mouth was usually performed along with mouth-washing as a complementary act, and is mentioned frequently throughout the incantations of the mouth-washing ritual, it may be assumed to have become subsumed in that ritual. In fact, it is hard to imagine that in the case of cult statues the rituals existed independently, as if one could be performed without the other.

Since the initial publication, numerous additional fragments or partially preserved manuscripts of the mouth-washing ritual and its incantations have been discovered, as well as references to the ceremonies' performance in historical texts. The most important have been a complete tablet of the Babylonian version of the ritual published by Sidney Smith in 1925, (1) and the incantation tablets from Huzirina (Sultantepe).

Nonetheless, the ceremonies have been given scant attention in Assyriological literature, and were practically unknown to biblical scholars for whom they should have been of utmost importance. (2) The major treatment of the Mesopotamian cult statue in general and the mouth-washing ritual in particular was for a time Thorkild Jacobsen's study that brought the mouth-washing ritual to bear on understanding the relationship between the god and his statue. (3) The neglect of this ritual is partly attributable to the fragmentary preservation of many of the textual witnesses and the sporadic nature of their publication. However, some of the blame may certainly be placed on Western civilization's aversion to cult statues, especially following the biblical prohibitions and scathing diatribes against any practice of idolatry. (4)

The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia is by the very nature of the texts edited a long-awaited, major contribution to Assyriology, comparative religion, and biblical studies. It brings to completion work begun by Christopher Walker in 1966 when, for his Bachelor of Philosophy thesis at Oxford he first compiled and edited all known material relating to the Mesopotamian mouth-washing ritual. (5) Although Walker, a perennial treasure of the British Museum, generously showed his thesis to other scholars (including this reviewer) and permitted its citation in Assyriological literature, it remained unpublished and unavailable to the public at large, pending ongoing discoveries of additional fragments in excavations and museums.

The most recently discovered piece included here is a brief incantation tablet from the Neo-Babylonian library at Sippar, (6) but even after the book was prepared Walker received new photographs of some of the manuscripts (cf. p. 157, no. 4). Walker's work has finally been brought to fruition thanks to a fruitful collaboration, extending over a decade, with Michael Dick. Even before this volume appeared, Dick had initiated, edited, and contributed to a collection of essays on idol-making in the biblical polemics, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and modern India, which included a preliminary, semi-popular edition of some of the mouth-washing texts. (7) In addition, two major studies have appeared as harbingers of this publication, presenting preliminary editions of the texts and thorough analyses. One is a dissertation by Peggy Jean Boden. (8) The other is a volume on the theology of the cult statue by Angelika Berlejung that originated as a dissertation in the Theology Faculty of the University of Heidelberg. (9)

The volume at hand contains two parts. A concise but informative introduction discusses the relationship between the cult statue and the deity, the ancient titles of the ritual, the significance of mouth-opening and mouth-washing as found in this and other texts, the priest who performed the ritual, the history of the ritual as reconstructed from the manuscripts themselves as well as from references to performances of the ritual found in historical sources such as royal inscriptions, and the structure of the ritual. This valuable introduction cites or refers to all relevant textual material and incorporates the analyses of Boden and Berlejung mentioned above as necessary.

The main body of the book is the text edition itself. Presented first are the two recensions of the ritual, one from Nineveh (NR below) attested in numerous manuscripts, and the other from Babylon (BR below) known from a single copy. The ritual tablets are followed by the incantation tablets, up to eight in number (IT below). An appendix includes Assur Tablet A.418 (TuL 27), a text that is not part of the mouth-washing ritual per se, but which contains a ritual for repairing a divine statue and for burying one that is irreparably damaged. Mouth-washing is prescribed for a successfully repaired statue (ll. 21-22).

The Nineveh recension, attested in twenty-one manuscripts, is presented in a diplomatic score transliteration followed by a normalized, eclectic transcription with interlinear translation. In the transcription and translation the ritual has been divided into its major components as determined by Berlejung's analysis. The edition is annotated with a brief running commentary on textual, lexical, and topical matters. The Nineveh recension is incomplete and breaks off towards the end of the second day of the ritual.

The Babylon recension, known from only one tablet, is presented first in transliteration (no score necessary), then in transcription, and finally annotated (not interlinear) translation. This recension is fully preserved, taking the ceremony to its conclusion. The Babylonian recension is some two centuries younger than the Ninevite recension, and is somewhat abridged. The recensions are very similar but not identical, one of the main differences being in the stage of the ceremony when the egubbu vessel for the purifying water is prepared.

The incantation tablets, originating from various sites (Nineveh, Assur, Sippar, Uruk, Hama, Babylon, Nippur, Kalhu, and Huzirina) and periods (eighth to second centuries B.C.), are presented in score form followed by translation. Since most of the incantations are in Sumerian, there is no normalized transcription. Not all incantations mentioned by incipit on the ritual tablets are extant in the incantation tablets, and some incantations found in the incantation tablets are not mentioned by incipit in the ritual instructions. There are also some differences in the order of the incantations given in the instructions and their appearance on the incantation tablets. Despite these inconsistencies, there are clear parallels between the ritual actions and the content of the incantations. The incantation tablets are crucial for understanding the ritual, and when put in proper sequence and coordinated as far as possible with the instructions, they serve as a sort of running commentary, revealing to a great extent the purpose of the prescribed ritual actions that they accompany. Despite variations in the recensions and the remaining problems, it is now possible to get a good sense of how the ritual worked and what it meant.

In what follows I will discuss the content and interpretation of the mouth-washing ritual, and several aspects in the life of the cult statue with which this ritual is concerned.

BIRTH OF THE CULT STATUE

The mouth-washing ritual prescribed in the texts published here may be...