90 HORMUZD RASSAM, ESQ., 
knowing the sacred narrative, does not prove to me that 
they have any connexion with it. 
In communicating with my friend Mr. Theophilus G. Pinches 
of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at 
the British Museum about the Babylonian theory concerning 
the site of the Garden of Eden, he replied as follows :-— 
“With regard to the site of Paradise, as explained in 
Genesis, I am in favour of Armenia. I made a few remarks 
upon the subject as early as December, 1881 (see the “ Proceed- 
ings of the Society of Biblical Archeology ” for that date*) in 
consequence of my discovery that the district now known as 
Cappadocia corresponded, either wholly or in part, with the 
Kusua of a Cappadocian tablet and the Kfisu of the Assyrian 
horse-tablets, &c. This, of course, would correspond with the 
land of Cush of the Bible. I do not now recollect, however, 
why I added the footnote (note § below) on page 30. I 
suppose that I either wished not to commit myself to any 
definite expression of opinion, or that I meant to say: ‘The 
most likely position of the Babylonian Paradise is the region 
* The remarks which Mr. Pinches alluded to above are the following : 
“ The question of the situation of the land of the Kusia, as well as that of 
the form of the name when used to denote the country itself, seems to be 
set at rest by one of the tablets from which the above list of names of 
towns is taken. This tablet, which is the first published on Plate 53 of 
the work above referred to (the 2nd vol. of The Cuneiform Inscriptions of 
Western Asia), contains, in the second column of the obverse, the names of 
the cities and countries in the neighbourhood of the Taurus range of 
mountains, and includes (1.13) the land of thet Kasut (0 JEY EyVYE =], 
mit Ku-u-su). It is evident, therefore, from the connection in which it 
occurs, that we are to understand by this Cappadocia, and not Ethiopia. 
This identification sheds at once a new light on two important passages in 
the Book of Genesis the first of which is in chap. ii, v. 13, where the 
River Gihon, which “ encompasseth the whole land of Cush,” is mentioned ; 
and the other in chap. x, v., 8, where is recorded the fact that Cush begat 
Nimrod. Now, in both these passages it has been supposed by some 
scholars that the land of Cush here mentioned is the same as Ethiopia ; 
but it seems to me much better to identify it in both cases with Cappa- 
docia. The question of the position of Paradise is also connected with 
these identifications,§ on account of the removal of the river Gihon up 
thither. 
ah The word “ the” seems to be due to a misprint—read “ the land of 
Cisu. 
ft The word is given here in its simple geographic form, but on the 
‘* horse-tablets ” (Assyrian tablets referring to the transport of horses) 
it always occurs in the “ gentilic” form Awsda, “ Cushite.” 
§ The most likely position of Paradise is the region of the Persian Gulf 
(‘‘ the remote place at the mouths of the rivers”). 
