There is another argument. Professor Sayce in his lectures reproduces (page 437) Mr. George Smith's account of the Temple of Bel derived from a Babylonian text. The temple was oriented east and west. In a description of one of the enclosures we read that on the northern side was a temple of Ía, while on the southern side there was a temple of Bīl and Anu. This not only shows that Ía was regarded as sacred to the true south, but that the temple buildings were planned like the Egyptian ones, the light either from sun or star passing over the heads of the worshippers in the courts into the temples. (Compare temple M in the temple of Amen-Rā, page 118 _ante_.) But η Argûs never rose or set anywhere near the south. I have ascertained that its declination was approximately 32° S. in 5000 B.C., and increased to 42° S. by about 2000 B.C. Hence between these dates at Eridu its amplitude varied between 38° and 51° S. of E. or W. Now here we are far away from the S. point, though very near the S.E. or S.W. point, to which it is stated some of the Babylonian structures had their sides oriented. The question arises whether there was a star which answers the other conditions. _There was a series of such stars._ It may be here mentioned generally that the precessional movement must, after certain intervals, cause this phenomenon to be repeated constantly with one star after another. Beginning with perhaps a sufficiently remote period, we have:-- Achernar 8000 B.C. Phact 5400 B.C. Canopus 4700 B.C. These stars would appear very near the south point of the horizon at Eridu at the dates stated, and describe a very small arc above it between rising and setting at certain times of the year. Now to go a stage further in the study of the Ía--Ea or Eridu--star, it is desirable to quote the legend concerning Ía or Oannes derived from Bêrôssos through Alexander Polyhistôr.[161] "In the first year there appeared in that part of the Erythraean sea which borders upon Babylonia a creature endowed with reason, by name Oannes, whose whole body (according to the account of Apollodôros) was that of a fish; under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below similar to those of a man subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice, too, and language were articulate and human; and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.