Schutzgottheiten, die Götter des Eingangs von (E)-Sagil (und) der Mauer von (E)-Sagil," explaining in a note: "šêdu und lamassu s i n d eben bie Gottheiten, die am Eingang und an der Mauer des Tempels stehen (dort dargestellt sind)." These translations do not advance the understanding of the passage. Scheil comes nearer the mark with his "dans les murs d'E-SAG-GIL," and Harper strikes it with "in the midst of Esagila."

The context demands the meaning within, in the midst of, Esagil.' The wish is expressed that in Esagil the other gods may intercede with the chief gods of the temple, Marduk and his spouse Zarpanit, in behalf of the needy suppliant of whom the preceding lines treat. But how can the meaning 'in, within' be derived from libit?

We may supply in thought ina, within,' before libit. Or we may suppose that the sign here rendered libit (the regular sign for libittu, brick') is used for libbi or ina libbi, in the midst of,' owing to the identity of sounds in the first part of the two words. Such use of ideograms for words of similar sound is not unknown. But however explained, libit Esagil must mean within Esagil.' The case is not essentially changed if Scheil be in the right with his rendering within the walls of Esagil,' because within the walls' means 'inside.'

Applying the result thus obtained to 44, we render, libit E-barra within the temple Ebarra,' as the place in which the gods are to curse the miscreant.

There remains 1. 75 še-id bi-tim, or, as generally read, še-it bitim.

48

The second sign is ambiguous. It may be id or it. In preferring id I connect the word še-id with šedu.' This word šédu occurs also in 41 še-du-um la-ma-zum, a passage already discussed in part (p. 132). Both words clearly indicate gods, or at least superhuman beings.

1 Dr. Pinches (loc. cit. 519) gives no transliteration, but his translation: "the divine bull of the house," shows that he also reads še-id and not še-it. Libit E-barra, however, he renders: "the bricks of E-babbara." This makes the temple one of the cursing agents, along with the great gods, the Annunaki and the še-id bi-tim, instead of the place of the cursing. The šu-a-ti Dr. Pinches translates as I have done above. This article had been sent to the editor of the Journal before my attention was attracted to the translation of Dr. Pinches. It is a pleasure to find my interpretation of this passage in two important points confirmed by such good authority.

134

Lyon, The Hammurabi Code.

[1906.

In all the passages where lamassu occurs it is in a benevolent capacity. So likewise šedu in 41". But here in 44" the šedu are associated with the great gods and the Annunaki in a destructive capacity, in cursing the miscreant.

Bi-tim, house,' in še-id bi-tim, probably stands for temple, not unlikely for the temple Ebarra, though possibly for temple in general. Whether the Shedu of the temple be an individual or a class is not clear.

The discussion may close by repeating the translation of the passage: "May the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunnaki in their totality, (and) the temple Shedu curse with a destructive curse in the temple Ebarra, him, his offspring, his land, his soldiers, his people, and his ummanu.”

Thus disappears the supposed evidence that the monument was set up in Ebarra in Sippar.

The Seal Impressions on an Early Babylonian Contract (Harvard Semitic Museum, No. 109).-By DAVID G. LYON, Professor in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

In the year 1890 there was bought at auction in London for the Harvard Semitic Museum a clay tablet of the kind commonly known as case tablets. The case or envelope is intact, save for three small breaks, one at one end and two at the other, but the few missing signs are easily supplied from the context. In a duplicate copy bought for Lord Amherst at the same auction, a considerable part of the covering is broken away, thus revealing the inner tablet. As is generally known, the record on the covering of a case tablet is the same as that on the tablet within, the main difference being that the covering is often provided with a considerable variety of scenes made by the impression of the seals of persons named in the writing (contracting parties, witnesses, judges, etc.).

The tablet is dated in the reign of Samsu-iluna (about 2200 B. C.), son and successor of Hammurabi, of the first Babylonian dynasty.

The record is of the division of an inheritance (real estate and personal property) between several heirs, followed by the usual statement that the division is complete, to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, and by the pledge that no one of them would ever bring a suit against the others. To this they swore in the name of Šamas, Aá, Marduk and Samsu-iluna the king. There are five witnesses, including the scribe Shamas-nasir.

The name of the place of the transaction is partly effaced by seal impressions, but the mention of Šamas, Aá, the Euphrates and Sippar shows that the region is that of Sippar.

In examining this tablet anew recently I was struck by the number of the seal impressions and by the excellence of some of them. Of these impressions there are 25, several of which are made over the written spaces. One side has 7, the other 6; one end 3, the other 2; one edge 4, the other 3. Where impression and writing are mingled each obscures the clearness of the other.

There is much repetition. To show how the impressions are grouped I have prepared a diagram (Figure 1), which may be converted by a little imagination into a solid representing the tablet. A and E are the two ends, B and D the two edges, C and F the two sides. The numbers indicate the position of the seal impressions, the distinction by suspended letters being for ease of reference. The same number indi

DIAGRAM OF TABLET SHOWING POSITIONS OF SEAL IMPRESSIONS
ON THE VARIOUS SURFACES.

cates the same seal. It thus appears that A and the right hand portion of B C D were stamped by the owner of seal 1; the middle portion of B C D by seal 2; E and the left hand portion of B C D by seal 3. On side F four seals were used, two of them twice each. A and B, likewise C E F above the dotted line, at the time of writing were left bare for the seal impressions; also D, except that the lines of writing run over on this edge from C. The record is therefore confined to the space

below the dotted lines on CE F.