Coming to the interpretation of the fragment, we find that it begins with an account of the destruction of a city by some agent. What is intended by the contrast between the animals of the mountain and of the field is not altogether clear. The former are represented as being caught by the destroyer — to speak thus indefinitely for the present — on his approach to the city, while it may be that those of the field are spared, though upon what grounds such a possible distinction is made is not appa rent.
It may be that there is some mythological allusion here which we will come across again in some other text, as yet unpublished. I find only one reference in a religious text which may possibly have some connection with the notion underlying our passage.
In an incantation dealing with the disease ti'u  (IV R 5, col. Ill, 15) there occurs the following phrase:
mamman la ibasu istu sadi usirida.
Sayce's rendering (Hibbert Lectures, p. 461) is certainly wrong. The subject of userida is, without much question, the disease, and "mamman la ibasu" I take as an idiomatic expression for "everything whatsoever" — the negative particle adding force just as it does in the idiomatic expression mala basu , "whatsoever."
Graphically the various steps in the destruction of the city are described; and, upon the conclusion of his task, the destroyer proceeds to the "seat of the evil gods," which, as has been shown, is the expanse of heaven.
The evil gods are the seven evil spirits to whom we have so many allusions in the religious texts, and since they are always represented as the enemies of mankind, we may conclude that it is not with hostile intent, but as belonging to their circle, that the destroyer now enters their midst. In other words, the mis sion upon which he ha,s been sent out is completed, and he returns to present a report of his doings to the king of the evil spirits, Anu, — as one feels tempted to supply.
The ekallu mentioned here would then refer to the palace of Anu in the heavens.
How many lines are missing at the end of the obverse must unfortunately remain an open question. A measurement of the clay librajy tablets, particularly those containing epic and religious texts, shows that the length of the tablets is pretty constant, and that the number of lines does not vary very much.
Custom seems to have been as active a force in these matters in ancient Mesopotamia as it is to-day, in dictating the form of an 8vo or i2mo volume, and, indeed, with the manufacture of "writing " bricks carried on, on a large scale, which led no doubt to the use of molds, there is every reason to suppose that the sizes of the tablets were definitely fixed, and that the number of sizes in actual use was equally definite.
Moreover, the systematic arrangerhent of a large library would of itself lead to the conve nience of a "uniform binding" so far as this was possible, and it may be that under the additional influences of the natural con servatism of the East, certain shapes were always retained for cer tain subjects.
Be this as it may, the average number of lines on a mythological or religious tablet may conveniently be put down as fifty to fifty-five. Now, since at the point where the obverse begins, the story appears pretty well advanced, ten to fifteen lines at least are to supplied at the beginning, which would leave about twenty lines to be added from the point where the obverse breaks off. But the difficulty in determining what connection exists between the obverse and reverse is enhanced by the impossibility of determining the original width of the tablet.
That it consisted of several columns may be put down as almost certain, from the consideration that such is the case with almost all such tablets of Asurbanabal's library as, like our own, con tain a religious or mythological tale of some kind.
The creation series of tablets, consisting, so far as at present ascer tained, only of obverse and reverse, appear to form an exception, and so does the famous tablet recounting the story of the descent of Istar into the world of spirits , but the others, such as the Gistubar series, the "Dibbarra", the "Zu" series and so forth (Cf. Bezold Babyl. Assy. Liter., pp. 175-176), consist of either four or six columns (that is, either two or three columns on each side), and so, also, the great magical texts have six columns.
From the ease with which line 9 of reverse joins line 10, the breadth of each column can be approximately conjectured, but there are no means of ascertaining whether the tablet contained two or three columns on each side, though the chances are in favor of the former. What is left of the reverse in any case rep resents the last column of the brick.
Now, with at least two columns entirely missing, it would of course be idle to speculate on the precise connection between the two sides, but assuming, as seems justifiable, some general connection, the reverse represent ting either the end of a story begun on the obverse, or the end of some episode belonging to a more extended epic, I find (a) in the introduction of Ea and Marduk on the reverse, and (b) in the mention of the plague-god, the clue to the general inter pretation of the fragment.
In order to establish my position, it will be necessary to dwell at some length upon the character of Ea and Marduk in Babylonian mythology, as well as to make an attempt to trace the development of the r61es of both as re vealed by the cuneiform literature.
The reverse begins, as already pointed out, with a petition addressed to various gods. Of these Ea responds and calls upon Marduk to undertake some work.
Now, Ea is, throughout the Babylonian religious and mytho logical literature, pre-eminently the "god of humanity". He is the creator of mankind. The favorite titles bestowed on him are "ruler of Humanity", "directing the destinies of men";  the "giver of Laws".
Accordingly, he is the saviour of mankind, who answers the appeal for help when it reaches him in his home in the watery abyss. When pestilence stalks about in the land, when disease enters the body, when disturbances in the natural phenomena strike terror into men's souls, it is to Ea that the petition for relief is sent.
With him there is always associated from a certain period on, his son and servant, Mar duk, who conveys the message of mankind to Ea, "dwelling in the watery abyss", and from Ea, Marduk receives orders and instructions how the evil complained of is to be removed.
Precisely as in our text, so Ea is frequently portrayed as being roused to anger upon hearing of the ravages of the evil spirits, who are made responsible for everything. In a set speech he usually prescribes certain remedies which Marduk thereupon brings to mankind, or himself applies.
The introduction of Ea and Marduk of itself makes it very likely that our fragment deals with a contest of some destructive power or powers against men. Were it a contest among the gods, it is almost certain that Bel, or Bel and Nusku would be introduced at this point, who bear about the same relation to the gods that Ea and Marduk do to men.
Bel is pre-eminently the counsellor of the gods, and Nusku is his ser vant, ready to do his word. Hence the opposition between Bel and Ea, which is well brought out in the Babylonian version of the flood.
Curiously enough, in the Deluge story, neither Bel nor Ea are accompanied by their servants. In contradistinction to what we find elsewhere, Ea communicates the decision of the gods directly to his favorite "sitnapistim", and not through the mediation of Marduk, and so there is no mention of Nusku in the story.
Bel is the first to see the ship which has survived the general destruc tion ; but the message of the survival is not conveyed to him by Nusku. I believe that we have here a means of fixing the com parative age of some of the mythological tales in the cuneiform literature, and, at the same time, an indication of their growth.
Adopting the principle now generally admitted in the study of comparative mythology, that the simpler version is the older, the Deluge story in its original shape, at least, would belong to an earlier mythological stratum than such a fragment as ours, where the rescue of humanity is complicated by the mediation of Mar duk. How the latter came to be added, and similarly why Nusku was attached to Bel, is a question into which it is impossible and needless to enter here.
Suffice it to express in a word my con viction that the combination is due in both cases to an amalga mation of two deities, whose worship originated at different places, but whose character was very much alike. In the case of Ea and Marduk, the further suggestion may be permitted that the former, whose home is the ocean, was the "god of humanity" to a people living at the sea coast ; the latter to a people whose seat was inland.
A third period in the develop ment of Ea-Marduk and Bel-Nusku myths is represented by portions of the text IV R 5, where, by the same process which led to attaching Marduk to Ea and Nusku to Bel, a combination of all four has taken place.
Bel and Ea are no longer in opposition, but the former (IV R 5, col. I, 54 ffg), consults with Ea upon hearing of the ravages of the evil spirits. The words in which the anger of Bel is described are almost identical (see the com mentary above) with those applied to Ea on other occasions.
More remarkable still in the same text, col. ii, 32, ffg where the tale of the seven spirits is repeated, the news of their mis chief first reaches Bel, who orders his servant Nusku to inform Ea "in the deep", whereupon the latter summons his son and servant, Marduk, and communicates in turn the news to him, at the same time taking the necessary steps for quelling the rebel lion which the evil spirits have stirred up.
While, as a matter of course, I do not regard the different layers of these myths which I have pointed out as exhaustive or final — and, indeed, any " final " conclusion is impossible in the present state of our knowledge of Babylonian mythology, with hundreds of texts still obscure and so many more unpublished — I believe that the distinctions laid down merit attention, and, at all events, represent the method by means of which we may hope to obtain a picture of the unfolding and growth of this myth ology.
Returning now to our text, and adopting provisionally the three distinguishable stages of the Ea myth, viz. :
- Ea, by himself, as saviour of humanity, opposed to Bel, as protector of the gods.
- Combination of Ea and Marduk, corresponding to the combination of Bel with Nusku.
- Amalgamation of Ea-Marduk with Bel-Nusku, it is evident that the fragment before us belongs to the second stage.
Ea calls in the aid of Marduk, but it is to be noted that Ea hears the appeal directly, in contradistinction to the incantation texts, where Marduk brings him the news ; and, secondly, a new feature in our fragment is the introduction of the armies of Marduk.
I am not aware of any other reference to these armies in the mythological literature. Elsewhere, in the fourth creation tablet, recounting the contest between Marduk and the dragon Tiamat, the weapons of Marduk are introduced, but neither here nor in the poetic fragment II R 19, No. 2, which is devoted to a detailed description of the equipment of the god, is there any mention made of his armies. 
For this reason alone, any at tempt to bring our Marduk into some connection with the van quisher of Tiamat, which would naturally be suggested by the similarity of their r61es, must be abandoned ; but there are also other considerations which show very clearly that -the Marduk Tiamat epic belongs to an entirely different series of myths.
Here it is at the command of Anu that Marduk undertakes the contest, and it is from Anu that he receives his weapons. In the body of the story Ea is not introduced at all, and indeed it would seem that not only has the Marduk of the "Dragon" epic nothing in common with the Marduk of our fragment and the other tales above referred to, but the introduction of Marduk into the "Dragon" story seems to be due to a later phase which the tale assumed, whereas the original and real hero is the god Bel, whose name, it is to be noted, constantly interchanges in the tale with Marduk.
That the story in the form in which it is found in the so-called fourth tablet of the creation series (pub lished by Budge, PSBA, x, p. 86) has been considerably modi fied from its original form by some redactor, or by the nat ural development of popular traditions, is clear from the attempt made in the closing lines to drag Ea into the story. The episode terminates properly with l 7, Rev. of Budge's text (Sayce's translation, Hibbert Lectures, p. 383, 1. i).
What follows is merely a brief recapitulation and summary of the story, with the evident purpose, as shown by the concluding words, to bring it into relationship with the creation of the firma ment, but with which I feel convinced it had originally nothing to do.
This summary is introduced by the statement that since the time that Marduk overcame Tiamat, the lamentations of Ea ceased, and again, further on, it is said that Marduk, after the contest, presented himself before the deep, the seat of Ea. 
But it is Anu who orders the combat, and accordingly we should expect the hero to present his account to this god. Evidently this addition and change has been made at a time when Marduk was inseparably joined to Ea as his special messenger, while in the story itself Marduk has taken the place which originally belonged to Bel, who, as already said, is pre-eminently the war rior of and for the gods.
Again, we may further distinguish between redactions of the story in which Bel still occurs by the side of and interchangeably with Marduk, and those in which the latter has completely usurped the r61e of the former, and where, moreover, Anu also disappears to make room for Ea.
This is the case in the fragment No. 18, published by Delitzsch, AL.,8 p. 95-96, which certainly treats of this conflict, the posi tion of which fragment, therefore, in the creation series is not at all as clear as Jensen would have it. We may, accordingly, suppose the development of the story to have been somewhat As follows:
Originally, the Tiamat story represented a contest among heavenly spirits. Bel, as the warrior of the gods, is commanded by Anu, the king of the gods, to wage war against the dragon. He succeeds, and upon the completion of the struggle presents himself before Anu.
Through the amalgamation, probably, of the worship of Bel with Marduk, for which we have satisfactory evidence , Marduk is introduced into the Story as identical with Bel, whose name, under the form of de-lu (signifying "lord") becomes a mere title of Marduk.
The association of Marduk with Ea leads to the introduction of the latter, and in conse quence the character of Tiamat is transformed.
From being the enemy of gods, she becomes the enemy of men, and this leads naturally to the substitution of Ea for Anu as the instiga tor of the combat, and the complete usurpation on the part of Marduk of the r61e beloiiging to Bel.
While, therefore, as stated at the outset of this discussion, the vanquisher of Tiamat must be kept distinct from the Marduk of our fragment, still the reference to his armies and the allusion to a combat suggests that the r61e in which Marduk is represented arose under the same influence that produced the form he has assumed in the Tiamat epic, in what I regard as its transformed phase.
Again, in the "incantation" texts, it is by procuring waters of purifica tion, or by prescribing magic formulas, that Marduk succeeds in redeeming man from the ravages of the evil spirits, and even in the case of the revolt of the heavenly bodies it seems that the mere word of Ea, is sufficient to re-establish peace and order. There is no allusion to a combat; nor any reference to armies.
Ea is a god lite the one pictured by the prophet Zechariah, 4, 6, who acts "not by force nor by might", but by his "word" sent out through Marduk, and I should like to suggest that the charac ter of the latter, more specifically as a warrior with armies at his back, is due to his absorption of the r61e of Bel, and does not appear, therefore, until the amalgamation and identification of Bel  with Marduk has taken place.
Returning now to our fragment, we will be in a position, despite the obscurity enveloping the lines that follow upon the announcement of Ea's wrath, to determine the general trend of the narrative. In the commentary, we have called attention to parallel passages where the anger of Ea is described.
Taking these up again, and bearing in mind the conclusions we have reached regarding the development of what we may for conve nience call the "Ea myth", it is clear that the reverse of the frag ment introduces some variation of the well-known Ea-Marduk episode that we meet with so frequently.
As in the several passages above discussed, and elsewhere, so here Ea has been appealed to, and in response, calls upon his son, Marduk, to under take some task. To briefly recapitulate, we find this episode between Marduk andEa twice referred to at some detail in the magical text IV R S, Cols. I and II.
In both instances it is against the ravages of the seven evil spirits that the help of Ea is solicited, and, in fact, the second account. Col. II, is but a repetition, with some variations, of the account in Col. I. A general disturbance of the heavenly bodies has taken place. The Moon-god has been eclipsed. Samas and Ramman have deviated from their paths, and Istar, with Anu, is in rebellion.
Ea, upon hearing the news, is enraged, and calls upon Marduk to fight the evil spirits, upon the terriiination of which Sin, Samas, Ramman, /star and Anu are fixed in their places as before "night and day without inter ruption". Again, in the magical text IV R 15, Ea, upon the request of the fire-god, abetted by Marduk, stops the ravages of these spirits. In both texts the story is introduced in the midst of incantations, or followed by incantations.
Thirdly, in a large number of instances (IV R 3, cols. I, 31 II, 2 ; 4, col. Ill, 23 ; 50 col. II, 41, etc., etc.), an abbreviated form of a similar episode is found where, upon the request of Marduk, who informs his father of some evil that has afflicted a person, the god of humanity gives his son the necessary instructions for the cure of the trouble. It is needless for our purposes to dwell on the fact that Ea is represented here as interfering both on behalf of gods and men.
If the deductions above made are correct, the explanation for this double role is to be sought in the absorption on the part of Ea of the role which belonged originally to Bel ; but what is essential, is the circumstance that in all the passages in which the episode in any form has hitherto been found, it has been introduced incidentally — a quotation, as it were — for the purpose evidently of justifying the appeal to Ea by means of incantations; just as the episode of the descent of Istar to the lower world is recited with a view of justifying the belief in the possibility of a return of the spirits from their dark and dreary dungeon. 
In the text before us, however, the episode evidently forms part of the narrative which the tablet contained, and it is this direct allusion that lends to it a special interest and importance, as will appear presently.
The questions now arise, against whom is Ea's wrath di rected, and for what purpose are the armies of Marduk called into requisition ? The answer to these questions I find in theref erence to the plague-god, toward the end of the reverse.
Attention has already been called to the expression used, IV R 5, col. I, 67, in connection with the revolt of the heavenly bodies of Sin, Santas and Istar. We there read : miisa ti urra uzuzzu la naparkasumite, that
"day and night they were fixed without interruption".
So it was before the revolt took place, and so, again, after the rebellion has been quelled.
In our text it is Dibbarra who is described as being
"fixed day and night without interruption."
It is certainly but legitimate to conclude, from this, that it is against Dibbarra that the efforts of Ea and Marduk are directed, as a result of which he is firmly chained to his place, and restrained from doing the mischief upon which, accord ing to Babylonian mythology, he is always bent.
Precisely, then, as in the Marduk-Ea episodes with the seven evil spirits, with the heavenly bodies and with the various evils (superinduced by the spirits) afflicting mankind, it is throiigh the agency of the god of humanity, in consort with his son, that the violence of the plague-god is checked.
I conclude, therefore, that we have on the reverse of our fragment a scene in a narrative which described some of the ravages of the plague-god, ending with the final subjugation of the latter through Ea and Marduk. Assuming, furthermore, as we found justifiable, some connection between the obverse and reverse, it is Dibbarra who is the subject of the verbs with which the obverse begins.
He it is who enters the city of Inmarmaru and brings about its destruction. But, again, just as in the story of the heavenly revolt, the seven evil spirits are the instigators of the movement, so behind Dib barra there is another and greater power, at whose command, it would appear, the destruction is undertaken — Anu, the king of the gods, the same as whose "messengers" the seven spirits commit their deeds of violence and destruction.
After this it is likely that further ravages of Dibbarra were recounted ; but leaving this and all other con jectures aside for the present, it is against the plague-god that ' the appeal to the deities mentioned on the reverse is made Who the person or persons are presenting the petition, whether the inhabitants of Inmarmaru or some other place, it is, of course, idle to conjecture.
That neither Sin, Samas nor Istar responds is quite in accord with the position occupied by these deities in IV R 5, ranged, as they there are, against Ea and Marduk, and acting in union with Anu and the evil spirits. Before proceeding here to a discussion of other tales — or, rather, fragments of tales — in which Dibbarra appears in a role similar to that of our fragment, and which will, I trust, more firmly establish the interpretation proposed, it is necessary to dwell on the refer ences to the " offerings," and the " images " that follow upon the announcement of Ea's wrath.
Beginning with the former, it is worthy of notice, as throwing, perhaps, some light on the difficulty, that in the two hymns quoted in the commentary to the word "taklime" Marduk is addressed as the one who "gives gifts or offerings", and so in. a third hymn, published by Briinnow (ZA. V, pp. 77-78), K, 7592, Rev. 11, Marduk is said to be
"nadin kitruba u nindabu  ana il"
— "giving sacrifice and free-will offering to the god . . . . ;"
and where the parallelism
"mukin terit apsi",
"establishing the law of the watery deep" (the home of Ea),
suggests the restoration "Ea".
Is there, perhaps, some allusion to these "gifts" in our tablet, or have we a more general refer ence to offerings that were made at an improper season.
From the Babylo-Assyrian hemerologies we see that as there were certain days on which sacrifices were brought, there were others on which they were expressly forbidden. Thus, in a hemerology for the month of Elul (translated by Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 70-76) there is an injunction against offerings on the 7th, 14th, 19th, 2 1 St and 28th day of the month.
At all events, so much is clear that there is a reference here to offerings that were given at an improper time, and it furthermore appears legitimate to conclude that, in consequence of this transgression, a destruction of lands and men had been ordered. It is hardly to be supposed, however, that it is Ea or Marduk who iristigates this terrible destruction, but either Anu, or Dibbarra at the com mand of Anu. These lines, then, furnish the explanation for the wrath of Ea, and it is not until the fifteenth line, where the latter utters the great " word " (as in IV R 3, col. II, 22), that Ea begins to act. 
I venture to suggest further that it is the inhabi tants of some city who have offended Anu by offering sacriiices at an improper season, and in consequence of which they, just as Inmarmaru, have been visited by the plague-god. They appealed to various deities, and Ea responds.
Passing on now to the reference to the "images," the fol lowing passages in mythological texts are to be taken into con sideration :
There is an allusion to the images of Ea and Marduk in the "prescription" against evil spirits, IVR 21, No. i, 38. As a means of protection, they are to be placed to the right and left of the gate, and further on (1. 41), Marduk is spoken of as "Asibu salam"  " inhabiting the image." Again, in K 1284 (published by Lenormant Et Accad., II, p. 239), immediately after the usual Ea-Marduk dialogue, the order is given by Ea to Marduk,
"salam andunanisu  bini",
i. e., "the image of his full height build."
Furthermore, from Sargon Bull., 1. 71 (Gold inscrip. 19 ffg. Annals 424 and 429), it appears that a belief was current which made Ea the author of the colossi, stationed at the ap proaches to the palace chambers, as well as of sculptured images in general. 
"ilu sa nappahi",
"god of the smithy" — a sort of Babylonian Vulcan.
Now it seems to me that there must be some allusion in our text to these images, which even in later times, when the belief in their divine origin was no longer current, were supposed to grant protection against evil spirits. 
Further than this general proposition, however, that Ea who, I take it, is here speaking, re fers to some image or images that he has made, it is hardly possi ble to go. The suffix sunu, would lead us to suppose that they have been already referred to.
May it be that there was an account , of their having been destroyed by Dibbarra, in the course of his ruthless passage from city to city, and that Ea now gives the order to Marduk and his armies to restore them?
Such a train of reasoning would further lead us to see in the sukuttu something connected with these images — a "tabernacle", as Amiaud has it, the destruction of which must also have been recounted in the last portion of the tablet, and which is now likewise being rebuilt.
Thirdly, the "house" (1.25), which is added to the "sukuttu", would be the temple proper encompassing the salme and sukuttu, and we would thus have in the images, tabernacle and temple a de scription passing from the smaller to the greater.
Who the speakers in 1.26 are, whether Ea and Marduk, or Marduk and his hosts, or what not, it is impossible to say, but there will hardly be any question that the warning, "do not thou approach", is directed against Dibbarra. There would thus be a direct allusion to an attack made at some time upon the temple, and by the plague-god.
Through the express indication that the images were built "amongst men", equivalent in force here to "for the benefit of men", the supposition that the scenes of destruction recounted on the tablet take place on earth, and not among the heavenly bodies, receives a further support.
Finally, in connection with the binding of Dibbarra to his proper place "night and day without interruption", attention might be called to another passage in the hymn to Marduk, K 7592, Rev. 4,
"At thy left (O Marduk) (stands) Dibbarra, the great, the strongest of the gods, before thee."
The passage besides containing a reference to a subjugation of the plague-god by Marduk, suggests the restoration proposed at the end of 1. 25.
Footnotes and references:
According to Jensen, ZK., I, p. 303, "elephantiasis".
Compare the Enghsh idiom "never so great" by the side of " ever so great".
It is to be noted that this tablet (IV R 31) is also distinguished by its quite exceptional length.
So I think, without much question, naiiu, in the phrase, mustesir nakbesu (Sargron, Cyl. 70, etc.), and bil nakU (Sennacherib Bavian, 1. 28) . is to lie rendered, and not "canal" or "source", as Lyon, Peiser, Winckler, Thiele(Gesch., p. 519), and others do. Pognon, Bavian, p. 65, questions the correctness of the usual rendering, without suggesting any other.
In a note to Dr. Ward's article on "The Rising Sun on Babylonian Cylinders", (Jour, of Ameri can Archeology, Vol. Ill, p. 56), I have suggested the same translation for sad nakbi, "mountain of Fate", in VR 50, col.i, 1. 4, where the phrase stands in parallelism with sad simatu, and I connect the stem with Hebrew nid, "curse", a meaning that may be naturally devel oped from dwelling on the unfavorable side involved in the general conception of "fate".
Thirdly, l.20 Fragment 18, I would render nakab limnuti, etc., "through whose (.i.e., Mar. duk's), pure incantation, evil destinies, are removed". I reserve a fuller proof for another occasion. (See now Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 362).
Tiamat appears to have forces at her command, in addition to Kingu, her husband if the words niisru and fuliru (Del., AL", p. 99, 1. 23) are correctly interpreted by Sayce (Hibbert Lectures, p. 382).
Written in both cases ideographically NU GIM-MUD.
Fully set forth by Sayce, Hibhert Lectures, pp. 92-10?, though his view of the original character of Marduk is untenable.
One cannot help thinking: of the d'bar Jahwe "word of Jahe", which plays an dqually important part in a certain stage of the religion of the Hebrews.
It is worthy of note, as pointing to their antiquity, that in the Babylono-Assyrian Hemerologies, Anu and Bel are associated together, never Anu and Marduk. Cf. Sayce Hibbert Lectures, pp. 70-76.
See Jeremias' Bahyl-AssyHsch Vorstellungen, etc, pp. 6-8.
Synonyms, it will be remembered, of "taklimu" V R 11, 1-2. See Sayce, Hibbert Lec tures, p. 73, note.
See below, p. 36, where the same phrase as in our text, ana "sapan matati" with the probability of a restoration, "hulluk nise", is used of Dibbarra. Elsewhere, Nergal, concerning whose identity with the plague-god, see below, p. 134-5, is spoken of as "sapin mat nukurti" (XV R 26, No. I, 29) and "sapin mat la magiri" (IV R 24, 57) .
Compare the description of "jahwe yoseb hakkerubim" (IKgs 8, 7, etc., etc.), K 7592, Rev. 7, Marduk is spoken of "asib parakki".
I think we may finally settle upon "andunanu" as being a synonym of "bunanu". See Zimmern, Bussps. Note.
See Thiele Gesch., p520.
E. g., Tigl Pil III, 11 R 67, 81, builds images masar sut iBni rabute, as "a protec tion on the part of tlie great gods". Why Schrader (Keils Bibl., II, p. 24), reads "zar-su-ut", which he is unable to translate, I do not know. See now Thiele ZA. V, p. 302.