indicated, as well as I can at present, the grounds for my present conclusions respecting them, and what are their principal points of contact with the Bible narrative of Genesis.
I have also put forward some theories to account for various difficulties in the stories, and to connect together the fragmentary accounts.
The most hazardous of these theories is the one which makes Izdubar or Nimrod reign in the middle of the twenty-third century before the Christian era. I have founded this theory on several plausible, but probably merely superficial grounds; and if any one accepts my view on this point, it will be only for similar reasons to those which caused me to propose it; namely, because, failing this, we have no clue whatever to the age and position of the most famous hero in Oriental tradition.
I never lose sight myself of the fact, that apart from the more perfect and main parts of these texts, both in the decipherment of the broken fragments and in the various theories I have projected respecting them, I have changed my own opinions many times, and I have no doubt that any accession of new material would change again my views respecting the parts affected by it. These theories and conclusions, however, although not always correct, have, on their way, assisted the inquiry, and have led to the more accurate knowledge of the texts; for certainly in cuneiform matters we have often had to advance through error to truth.
