KEFEEEING TO BABYLONIA AND ELAM, ETC, 45 



in colour and appearance. Once, probably, accessible to 

 man, it was afterwards forbidden to him, for " no man enters 

 its midst " (ana lihhi-su manma Id irruhii). It was a well- 

 watered place, for the river-gods seem to have had it iinder 

 then- special protection and to have devoted to it their 

 special attention, for on each side of the abode of Tammuz 

 flowed two rivers — beyond a doubt the Tigris and the 

 Euphrates. The remarkable likeness of this account to that 

 of the Hebrews differs in this last circumstance, namely, that 

 the Babylonians pictured their Paradise as having two rivers 

 only {ida-ka-mina, " river mouth two ") and not four, as the 

 Hebrews. As in the Flood-stories of the two nations, also, 

 there is a great difference, for the monotheism of the Hebrew 

 account is replaced, in that of the Babylonians, by their 

 picturesque and interestingly symbohcal polytheistic system. 

 It will probably now take its place as one of the most 

 charming which excavations in Babylonia and Assyria have 

 restored to us. 



II. — Chedorlaomer and his Contemporaries. 



I now come to what many will probably regard as the 

 most interesting part of my lecture — namely, the tablets 

 which seem to refer to Arioch, Tidal, and Chedorlaomer.* 

 In speaking of these tablets I have decided to treat of them 

 in the order in whicli they came to my notice, and shall 

 begin with Sp. III. 2, which contains all three names. This 

 text is the lower left-hand part of an unbaked clay tablet 

 about 3f in. wide by 2f in. high, the obverse giving part of 

 16 and the reverse part of 12 lines of writing, mostly in a 

 very mutilated condition. The earlier lines contain a 

 reference to " work " (ipsetu-su), and have the word hammu, 

 in which Prof. Hommel sees the beginning of the name 

 Hammm-abi, who is identified by Prof. Schrader witb 



* At this stage I purposely say, " seem to refer," and I wish it to be 

 noted that I have never spoken of these names without a note of inter- 

 rogation, though this was probably an excess of caution. My audience 

 will be able to judge whether three names so similar to those in the 

 14th chai)ter of Genesis are, or are not, those of the personages men- 

 tioned in that chapter. I do not ask them, however, to express an 

 opinion as to the magnitude or the strangeness of the coincidence if they 

 should decide that the names given by the tablets are not those of Arioch 

 and his allies. The other Assyriologists are now adopting the views 

 regarding these names held by Prof. Sayce, Prof. Hommel, and myself. 



