yields a strange rendering, but in its special sense, when applied to large buildings, of “foundation, floor-space, area”, i.e. “surface”.  Dr. Ebeling reads ena-su at the end of the line, but the sign is broken; perhaps the traces may prove to be those of uzna su, “his ears”, in which case li-bit uz(na-su) might be rendered either as “surface of his ears”, or as “base (lit. foundation) of his ears”.

     (4) i.e. the length of his pace was twenty beru.

     (5) Lit. “the black-headed”.

The text here breaks off, at the moment when Pallil, whose help against the dragon had been invoked, begins to speak.  Let us hope we shall recover the continuation of the narrative and learn what became of this carnivorous monster.

There are ample grounds, then, for assuming the independent existence of the Babylonian Dragon-myth, and though both the versions recovered have come to us in Semitic form, there is no doubt that the myth itself existed among the Sumerians.  The dragon motif is constantly recurring in descriptions of Sumerian temple-decoration, and the twin dragons of Ningishzida on Gudea’s libation-vase, carved in green steatite and inlaid with shell, are a notable product of Sumerian art.(1) The very names borne by Tiamat’s brood of monsters in the “Seven Tablets” are stamped in most cases with their Sumerian descent, and Kingu, whom she appointed as her champion in place of Apsu, is equally Sumerian.  It would be strange indeed if the Sumerians had not evolved a Dragon myth,(2) for the Dragon combat is the most obvious of nature myths and is found in most mythologies of Europe and the Near East.  The trailing storm-clouds suggest his serpent form, his fiery tongue is seen in the forked lightning, and, though he may darken the world for a time, the Sun-god will always be victorious.  In Egypt the myth of “the Overthrowing of Apep, the enemy of Ra” presents a close parallel to that of Tiamat;(3) but of all Eastern mythologies that of the Chinese has inspired in art the most beautiful treatment of the Dragon, who, however, under his varied forms was for them essentially beneficent.  Doubtless the Semites of Babylonia had their own versions of the Dragon combat, both before and after their arrival on the Euphrates, but the particular version which the priests of Babylon wove into their epic is not one of them.

     (1) See E. de Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chaldee, pl. xliv,
     Fig. 2, and Heuzey, Catalogue des antiquites chaldeennes,
     p. 281.

(2) In his very interesting study of “Sumerian and Akkadian Views of Beginnings”, contributed to the Journ. of the Amer.  Or.  Soc., Vol.  XXXVI (1916), pp. 274 ff., Professor Jastrow suggests that the Dragon combat in the Semitic- Babylonian Creation poem is of Semitic not Sumerian origin.  He does not examine the evidence of the poem itself in detail,