“... is Merodach of planting. Lugal-a-ki- ... is Merodach of the water-spring. Ninip is Merodach of the garden (?). Nergal is Merodach of war. Zagaga is Merodach of battle. Bêl is Merodach of lordship and dominion. Nebo is Merodach of wealth (or trading). Sin is Merodach the illuminator of the night. Šamaš is Merodach of truth (or righteousness). Rimmon is Merodach of rain. Tišḫu is Merodach of handicraft. Sig is Merodach of.... Suqamuna is Merodach of the (irrigation-) reservoir.” As this tablet is not complete, there is every probability that the god Merodach was identified, on the lost portion, with at least as many deities as appear on the part that time has preserved to us. This identification of deities with each other would seem to have been a far from uncommon thing in the ancient East during those heathen times. A large number of deities of the Babylonian Pantheon are identified, in the Assyrian proper names, with a very interesting divinity whose name appears as Aa, and which may possibly turn out to be only one of the many forms that are met with of the god Ya’u or Jah, who was not only worshipped by the Hebrews, but also by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other nations of the East in ancient times. Prof. Hommel, the well-known Assyriologist and Professor of Semitic languages at Munich, suggests that this god Yâ is another form of the name of Ea, which is possible, but any assimilation of the two divinities is probably best explained upon the supposition that the people of the East in ancient times identified them with each other in consequence of the likeness between the two names. In any case, the identification of a large number of the gods—perhaps all of them—with a deity whose name is represented by the group Aa, is quite certain. Thus we have Aššur-Aa, Ninip-Aa, Bel-Aa, Nergal-Aa, Šamaš-Aa, Nusku-Aa, Sin-Aa, etc., and it is probable that the list might be greatly extended. Not only, however, have we a large number of deities identified with Aa, but a certain number of them are also identified with the deity known as Ya, Ya’u, or Au, the Jah of the Hebrews. Among these may be cited Bêl-Yau, “Bel is Jah,” Nabû-Yâ’, “Nebo is Jah,” Aḫi-Yau, “Aḫi is Jah,” a name that would seem to confirm the opinion which Fuerst held, that _aḫi_ was, in this connection, a word for “god,” or a god. In Ya-Dagunu, “Jah is Dagon,” we have the elements reversed, showing a wish to identify Jah with Dagon, rather than Dagon with Jah, whilst another interesting name, Au-Aa, shows an identification of Jah with Aa, two names which have every appearance of being etymologically connected.