aps [3] and other sources of information, it is possible, under
the circumstances supposed, that such a ship as Hasisadra's might drive
before a southerly gale, over a continuously flooded country, until it
grounded on some of the low hills between which both the lower and the
upper Zab enter upon the Assyrian plain.

The tablet which contains the story under consideration is the eleventh
of a series of twelve. Each of these answers to a month, and to the
corresponding sign of the Zodiac. The Assyrian year began with the
spring equinox; consequently, the eleventh month, called "the rainy,"
answers to our January-February, and to the sign which corresponds with
our Aquarius. The aquatic adventure of Hasisadra, therefore, is not
inappropriately placed. It is curious, however, that the season thus
indirectly assigned to the flood is not that of the present highest
level of the rivers. It is too late for the winter rise and too early
for the spring floods.

I think it must be admitted that, so far, the physical cross-examination
to which Hasisadra has been subjected does not break down his story. On
the contrary, he proves to have kept it in all essential respects [4]
within the bounds of probability or possibility. However, we have not
yet done with him. For the conditions which obtained in the Euphrates
valley, four or five thousand years ago, may have differed to such an
extent from those which now exist that we should be able to convict him
of having made up his tale. But here again everything is in favour of
his credibility. Indeed, he may claim very powerful support, for it
does not lie in the mouths of those who accept the authority of the
Pentateuch to deny that the Euphrates valley was what it is, even
six thousand years back. According to the book of Genesis, Phrat and
Hiddekel--the Euphrates and the Tigris--are coeval with Paradise. An
edition of the Scriptures, recently published under high authority,
with an elaborate apparatus of "Helps" for the use of students--and
therefore, as I am bound to suppose, purged of all statements that could
by any possibility mislead the young--assigns the year B.C. 4004 as the
date of Adam's too brief residence in that locality.

But I am far from depending on this authority for the age of the
Mesopotamian plain. On the contrary, I venture to rely, with much more
confidence, on another kind of evidence, which tends to show that the
age of the great rivers must be carried back