Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

INTRODUCTION
The shuilla-rubric names the ritual by highlighting the hand-lifting gesture
as a central action, one likely presumed by the exorcists, and the rationale for
highlighting this gesture may be summarized as follows: 100 A gesture of lifted
hands expressed by terms corresponding to the shuilla-rubric is instructed for
various rituals, but for this one it was of central significance. That an element
occurring in various rituals could be the classifying rubric of a particular ritual
for which it held such significance is otherwise attested. 101 While offerings and
speech were essential to an audience, Akkadian shuillas emphasized the communicative
gesture to which the shuilla-rubric refers, a salutation signaling recognition
of a reciprocal but asymmetrical relationship between client and deity.
102 Given the lexical and visual evidence that such greetings were exchanged
in a reciprocal manner, this gesture would have provided a particularly apt ritual
focus for expressing both the desire to (re-)establish such a relationship with
the deity and the anticipation of the deity’s acceptance of this relationship and
favorable response to the petitions presented. As already noted, the proportion
of text dedicated to formal address of the deity typically occupies up to half of
the text of the prayer. These shuilla-prayers did convey petitions and were often
recited in conjunction with other prayers expressing petitions, but their ritual
designation highlighted this formal gesture of greeting. In so doing, the ritual
focused on an action which in a condensed and apt way signaled to the deity
simultaneously the client’s willing submission and expectation of favorable recognition
and help. In this way, the petitions associated with these shuillas were
explicitly contextualized by this gesture which affirmed an asymmetrical yet
reciprocal relationship between petitioner and deity.
Additional specifications of purpose within either rubrics or ritual instructions,
while rare, are attested among exemplars of Akkadian shuilla-prayers.
These may be seen as explicit statements of context within which the assistance
of the deity addressed was sought. 103
ritual’s human participants. The reason is that ritual was not effective in itself but depended
upon the gods’ collaboration. This concept could also account for occasional
ritual failure: the gods simply were refusing any communication with the human
sphere and were not inclined to accept a prayer or a ritual.
(“Ritual Healing and the Investiture of the Babylonian King,” in The Problem of Ritual Efficacy
[ed. W. Sax, J. Quack, J. Weinhold; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 17–44, here 17).
100 This explanation of this rationale follows Frechette, Mesopotamian Ritual-prayers, §§ 3, 7.
101 A particular ritual element, even one commonly attested among various rituals, was employed
in some cases to name a particular ritual for which that element captured the central
significance. Claus Ambos discusses how this is the case for the sprinkling rite central to the Bīt
salaʾ mê, “house of sprinkling,” ritual as well as for the “mouthwashing” central to the Mīs pî
ritual, “mouth-washing” (Der König, §II.3.2). See also Dick, “Pīt Pī,” 581–82).
102 As noted above, these shuilla-rituals were addressed, like those of the other two recognized
classes mentioned above, almost exclusively to individual high-ranking deities.
103 See Frechette, Mesopotamian Ritual-prayers, §3, 6.
35