After the heading and opening line there is a considerable blank in the story, two columns of writing being entirely lost. It is probable that this part contained the account of the parentage and previous history of Izdubar, forming the introduction to the story. In the subsequent portions of the history there is very little information to supply the loss of this part of the inscription; but it appears that the mother of Izdubar was named Dannat, which signifies “the powerful lady.” His father is not named in any of our present fragments, but he is referred to in the third tablet. He was no doubt a deity, possibly the Sun-god, who is supposed to interfere very much in his behalf. When Izdubar, the old god of fire, after first becoming a form of the solar deity, was finally personified and regarded as a mighty leader, strong in war and hunting, he was turned into a giant, one of the mythical monarchs who had ruled in Babylonia in long-past days, and had subdued the many petty kingdoms into which the valley of the Euphrates was then divided. The centre of the empire of Izdubar is laid in the region of Shinar, or Sumir, Erech “the lofty” being the chief seat of his power, and thus agrees with the site of the kingdom of Nimrod, according to Genesis x. 8, 9, 10, where we read: “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” We cannot overlook the fact that the character of Izdubar as hunter, leader, and king, corresponds with that of Nimrod. Cush, the father of Nimrod, may be identified with Cusu, Cusi or Cus, the Accadian deity of sunset and night. The word in Accadian signified “rest” and “darkness,” and is translated by the Assyrian _nakhu_ “to rest,” and _nukhu_ or _nukh_ “rest.” This latter word is identical with the Biblical Noah. It is very possible, therefore, that Cush, the father of Nimrod, has nothing to do with Cush or Ethiopia, the son of Ham, the two being set side by side in Genesis merely on account of the similarity of their names. In this case all the ethnological difficulties occasioned by the belief that the Accadians of Babylonia were Cushites, and connected with Egypt or Ethiopia, will be avoided. It is curious to find the Christian writers identifying Nimrod with Evechous, the first king of Babylon, according to Berosus, after the flood.