QlntncU IttiuetHttg Hthrary JItlfaca, Ncui ^ark BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 \^i '< Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028555757 YALE ORIENTAL SERIES KESEARCHES VOLUME VI PUBLISHED ON THE FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF ALEXANDER KOHUT YALE ORIENTAL SERIES • RESEARCHES • VOLUME Yl THE EMPIEE OF THE AMOEITES BY ALBERT T. CLAY NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON • HUMPHREY MILFORD • OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCXIX cf CO;;H(:l-t Copyright, 1919, by Yale University Press. THE ALEXANDER KOHUT MEMORIAL PUBLICATION FUND. This volume is published by the Yale University Press on the Alexander Kohut Memorial Publication Fund. This Foundation was established October 13, 1915, by a gift to Yale University from members of his family for the purpose of enabling scholars to pub- lish texts and monographs in the Semitic field of researjsh. The Reverend Alexander Kohut, Ph.D. (Leipzig), a distin- guished Oriental scholar, in whose memory the fund has been established, was born in Hungary, April 22, 1842, of a noted family of rabbis. When pastor of the Congregation Ahavath Chesed in New York City, he became one of the founders of the Jewish Theo- logical Seminary, and was a professor in that institution until his death. He was a noted pulpit orator, able to discourse with equal mastery in three languages. Among his contributions to Semitic learning is the monumental work Aruch Completum, an encyclo- paedic dictionary of the Talmud, in eight volumes. Semitic and Oriental scholars have honored his memory by inscribing to him a volume of Semitic Studies (Berlin, 1897). (5) PREFACE Sayce and Wright about forty years ago brought to the attention of those interested in Ancient History the forgotten empire of the Hittites. The study of the inscriptions of Egypt and Babylonia in the decades which preceded had made this possible by furnish- ing allusions to this people who came to the fore about 2000 B. C. Another nearly forgotten empire which exerted a powerful influ- ence upon the surrounding nations, namely the Amorite, is also brought to light through similar investigations of the last few decades, largely in the cuneiform literature; but this empire belonged to the period just prior to the ascendancy of the Hittites. In Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites, a study showing that the religion and culture of Israel are not of Babylonian origin, the thesis was advanced that the culture of the Semitic Babylo- nians had, if not its origin, at least a long development in the land of the Amorites before it was carried into Babylonia ; and that the religion and culture of Israel were not importations from Baby- lonia, but developed naturally in their own land from an earlier and indigenous civilization. As is well known, there appeared in Germany about a score of years ago a vigorous school of critics generally known as the Pan- Babylonian or Astral-mythological School, which maintained that Babylonia had furnished the Hebrews with most of their religious ideas, including monotheism; in fact, the members of this school held that the civilization of Israel generally had its origin in Baby- lonia. Winckler, the founder of the school, endeavored to show that the patriarchs and other leaders of Israel, as Joshua, Gideon, Saul, David, etc., were solar or lunar deities of the Babylonians. Delitzsch called Canaan at the time of the exodus a domain of Babylonian culture. Gunkel held that Israel's religion had assimi- lated actively this Babylonian material, and when it had become relaxed in strength, it swallowed the foreign elements, feathers and all. Zimmern found that elements of the Marduk cult were applied to Christ : even his death was suggested by that of Marduk and Tammuz. But the most extreme of all was Jensen, who found (9) /' ■^ V- 10 THE EMPIEE OF THE AMOEITES. that all the biblical characters, from Abram to Christ, even includ- ing John the Baptist, were simply borrowed from Babylonian sun- myths. In popularizing these theories, as well as others not so far-reach- ing, that arose in Germany, certain American and English scholars resorted to all kinds of efforts to pare them down so as to make them more palatable : by making the borrowings early instead of late, proposing that when Israel entered Palestine they were part of the mental possession of the people ; or by making it appear that these Babylonian myths were simply used in a devotional way to illustrate ethical implications, or as media for the expression of a more spiritual faith. In many quarters, scholars gravitated toward this theory ; and it was conceded generally that there was a considerable dependence upon Babylonia. Reflections of these revolutionary ideas flared up almost everywhere. The purpose of the study Amurru was to examine the data upon which the theories rested; the results were such that it could be asserted that Israel did not adopt the civilization of the Babylo- nians and that they were not the purveyors of borrowed religious ideas and myths from Babylonia. The study of the cultural elements of both lands did not show such Babylonian influence, for apart from the use of the Babylonian language and syllabary in the West, the evidence from the Neolithic to the Greek period is wanting. To cite a single test, EUil was the name of the chief god of Babylonia until Marduk supplanted him. Nergal was also a well known Babylonian deity. The thesis Amurru maintained that these were names of Amorite deities which had arisen in Babylonia largely because of the form in which they had been written : En-lil, Amar-Utug, and Ne-Uru-Gal. Even though this proves incorrect, if Babylonia furnished the West with its religion and culture, where is the influence of. these deities seen? The single use of the ideo- gram Ne-Uru-Gal on the Ta'anach seal proves nothing, for it doubtless reproduces the name of an Amorite god. But where in the West do we find the pronunciation of EUil, Marduk, Nergal,^ which we know was actually used in Babylonia? ^ Post-exilic names like Mordeeai of course cannot be considered ; nor "the priest of Nergal" mentioned in a Phoenician inscription of the third century B. C. PBEPACE. 11 The thesis was presented not only to demonstrate that the Pan- Babylonists' claims must be abandoned, but also to show that the elements from which the Semitic Babylonian religion had largely evolved had their origin in the West land, or in the land of Amnrru ; and that, instead of the Hebrew culture being imported from Babylonia, it had grown up and developed naturally from older and indigenous civilizations which had come down from gen- erations reaching far back into the ages. To make this appear reasonable, it became necessary to show that there was an anti- quity for the civilization of this Semitic land which had been hitherto unrecognized. It was fully expected that out of the mass of details offered in substantiation of the thesis, certain reviewers would seize upon such as would be readily recognized as doubtful by the casual reader. Mingled with the hundreds of facts presented in Amurru, there are many comparisons and suggested identifications set forth, that the unbiased investigator recognized were not *^put on the same level.'' For as one scholar wrote: ''It is sufficient merit to have opened up new vistas of the ancient culture of the Northern and Western Semites ; and even if some of the points emphasized, perhaps unduly, should not turn out to be supports for the theories, enough and more than enough remains to substantiate the main thesis that the Amorites entered Babylonia at an early period and brought the worship of certain gods and cosmological and other traditions with them, and that what we designate as Baby- lonian religion is the result of the mixture of these Amoritish ele- ments with those indigenous to the Euphrates Valley.''^ It was not thought for a moment that such an innovation would appeal to Winckler and his followers, abroad or in this country. It was not even contemplated that such a reactionary view would cause the casting aside of the cherished Pan-Babylonian theories by those who had adopted them as their own. And yet the publi- cations since the appearance of the book in 1909 show that the stream of Pan-Babylonian literature suddenly changed from a tor- rent to an almost insignificant rivulet. Most gratifying has been the number of those who, by review or commenf in various publications, or by correspondence, have 2 Prof. J. A. Montgomery in The Nation, March 24, 1910, p. 291. 12 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. accepted the new point of view; and even of those who, though unable to see their way clear to reverse completely their position, have realized that the cumulative proof presented is evidence of a character that requires serious consideration. The work Amurru was in no sense meant as an apologetic effort in the interests of the traditional view of the Old Testament. It was not intended to minimize the fact that the biblical writers brought the current myths or legends, with which they were acquainted, into accord with their advanced monotheistic concep- tion of the government of the universe. It did, however, defend vigorously the historical existence of such personages as Abraham, Moses, etc., as well as of a patriarchal period. While there was no apologetic effort intended, the conclusion which resulted tended to emphasize the reliability of the main outlines of the early history of the Hebrews and neighboring peoples as recorded in the Old Testament. The purpose of the present contribution is to assemble all the light that bears upon the history and religion of the Amorites, especially of that early period when the empire still existed; to corroborate the great antiquity that the writer has claimed for this people in making them one of the earliest known ; to show that Ur of the Chaldees was very probably the capital of the Amorite empire ; incidentally to offer additional evidence in substantiation of the thesis of Amurru; and to demonstrate that the generally accepted theory of the Arabian origin of the Semites is utterly baseless. It would be rash to imagine that all the multitudinous details set forth will pass the test of future searching inquiry. Inevitable alterations and difference of opinion manifestly will result from their presentation; yet it is fully expected that the main outlines will stand the test. The writer is indebted to his colleague Prof. C. C. Torrey, to Prof. A. T. Olmstead, Doctor Ettalene M. Grice and Doctor Henry F. Lutz for valuable suggestions, and assistance rendered in con- nection with the manuscript and proofreading. Albert T. Clay. New Haven, Conn., November 11, 1918. CONTENTS. Page I Introduction 17 II The Home of the Semites 27 III The Country Amurru 50 IV Excavations in Amurru 53 V The Eaces of Amurru 58 VI The Languages and Writing of Amurru 61 VII The Name Ajnurru or Uru 66 VIII Amorites in Babylonia 76 IX Early Babylonians in Amurru 95 ^ X Ur the Capital of Amurru 100 XI Other Mesopotamian Kingdoms Ill XII Mediterranean Kingdoms 121 XIII Amorites in Cappadocia 131 V XIV Egypt and Amurru 138 XV Amorites in the Old Testament 152 XVI Assyria and Amurru 156 XVII The Deities of Amurru 162 (13) ABBREVIATIONS A & B ABL ABB' ABB AE AJT AJ8L Amurru AKA APN B BA Babyloniaca BAB BE BRM Catalogue Clay PN Chron CT EBL EM SB HE HLC JA JA08 ' JBL JBAS KB KAr Barton, Archaeology and the Bible. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. Johns, An Assyrian Boomsday Book. Johns, Assyrian Beeds and Bocuments. Mtiller, Asien und Europa. American Journal of Theology. American Journal of Semitic Languages. Clay, Am,urru the Home of the Northern Semites. King, The Annals of the Kvngs of Assyria. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names. Briinnow, A Classified List of Cuneiform Ideographs. Beitrdge zur Assyriologie. Babyloniaca-Etudes de Philologie Assyro-Bdbylonienne. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt. Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collec- tion. Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period {YOR I). King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the Brit- ish Museum. Lutz, Early Babylonian Letters from Larsa {YBT II). Miiller, Egyptian Mythology; Yol. XIII, The Mythology of all Races. King, A History of Babylon. Breasted, A History of Egypt. Barton, Haverford Library Collection of Cuneiform Tablets. Journal Asiatique. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Journal of Biblical Literature. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Zimmem and Winckler, Bie KeiUnschriften und das Alte Testament. (15) 16 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. KTA LC LIE MBI MDOG MI Miscln MVAG OLZ P8BA R RA RBBA Ranke PN RS SA SBH Ta' annek TSBA UMB8 VB VS YBC YBT YOR ZA Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et Contrats de Vepoque de la pre- miere Dynastie Bahylonienne. King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Col- lection {YBT I). Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen; Part I Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. Orient alistische Literatur-Zeitung. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archeologie Orientale. Jastrow, Religious Belief in Babylonia and Assyria. Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names. Revue Semitique. King, Sumer and Akkad. Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen. Hrozny, Die Keilschrifttexte von Ta^ annek, in Sellin Tell Ta^ annek. Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. The University Museum Publications of the Babylonian Sec- tion. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmdler. Yale Babylonian Collection. Yale Oriental Series — Babylonian Texts. Yale Oriental Series — Researches. Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. I. INTEODUCTION The evidence of the early existence of the Amorites, as well as the proof of the futility of the Arabian theory, depends largely upon a study of names of countries, cities, temples, deities, and persons. An occasional historical reference is found which throws welcome light upon the subject, as for example, the origin of the founder of a dynasty, an allusion to the invasion of the land, or a title showing suzerainty of the country, etc. But in determining origins or influences, and even data upon which historical events are based, there is no more important evidence available at present than that furnished through the study of names. In not a few instances, considerable depends upon even a single name; for example, it rested alone upon the resemblance of the name Humbaba of the Gilgamesh epic to the name Humba, an Elamitic god, that the belief that the cedar forest scenes of the epic were laid in Elam, instead of the Lebanon or Amanus districts, which, however, is now definitely shown is a mistake (see Chapter VIII). There are known at present more than a hundred thousand per- sonal names which were written upon clay tablets belonging to all periods of Babylonian history. Having the opportunity of study- ing such large masses of names of a particular country, it becomes possible to single out or designate with considerable accuracy what is foreign and what is not. A large number of foreign names in Babylonian literature do not contain any known elements, which fact makes it impossible to identify their source ; but thanks to our increasing knowledge of the cultural elements of certain peoples, at least those of a general character, and more exact knowledge of the civilization of others, it is quite possible to identify with considerable accuracy names on the one hand that are Babylonian or Sumerian, and on the other that are Cassite, Hittite, Mitannian, Elamitic, Persian, Hebrew, Egyptian, Arabic, Greek, etc. 18 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Most of these nationalities can readily be determined from a knowledge of their nomenclatures; but even the nationality of names in languages of which we have little knowledge can fre- quently be identified. Although to start with we may be familiar with only a few names belonging to a foreign people, it neverthe- less soon becomes possible to identify many scores of others as belonging to the same people. For example, we may know that Teshub was the name of a Hittite god, Who was also worshipped in Mitanni. Names constituted with Teshub can therefore be ten- tatively set apart as Hittite, or Mitannian. The elements that are found combined with Teshub are compounded with names of other deities, which enables us to increase the list, at least tentatively. This process can be continued until a surprisingly large list of words is collected. The possibility of error in thus assembling and determining foreign names, as well as words, belonging to peoples of whose language we have little or perhaps no knowledge, is recog- nized ; but nevertheless, although such lists of foreign names suffer modification, the method leads to permanent results. The foreign names found on tablets from Babylonia represent the peoples that came in contact with those who lived in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. In some instances only isolated examples occur, and again masses of names, belonging to a partic- ular people. In many instances such influx of foreigners is caused by migrations or conquests; a foreign nation has invaded the land; or these alien names represent peoples who were brought captive into the land, or who settled in it. These foreign names, considered in connection with the personal names of rulers, make it possible in some instances to reconstruct considerable history with little additional data. For example, in the time of Manish- tusu, many Amorite names occur. The names of the rulers of the Nisin, Larsa, and Babylon dynasties, which were contemporaneous, as well as the thousands of foreign Amorite names in the legal and epistolary literature of the latter part of the third millennium B. C, show the same influence. The names of the rulers of the Cassite period bear Cassite names, and the documents of this time contain many of the same character, and also Hittite-Mitannian names. Hebrew names abound in the Assyrian inscriptions, after Israel had been carried into captivity. The same is true in the I. INTRODUCTION. 19 Neo-Babylonian period after Judah had been carried into captivity. In the Persian period, besides Hebrew names, many Persian and some Egyptian names occur, the latter apparently due to the rule of the Persian kings in Egypt. And as was to be expected, in the Greek period, Greek names are found. Besides the large masses of foreign names, smaller groups in the various periods can in many instances be accounted for. Even the absence of such for- eign names in certain periods furnishes very important data in deciding questions bearing on invasions, migrations, influence, etc. In brief, the study of names, together with isolated historical facts gathered from the records of contemporaneous peoples, has made it possible to create at least the outlines of the history of certain ancient nations. A complete treatise on the political history and religion of the land Amurru would embrace all our knowledge of Hebrew history and religion, the early legends and primitive religions of Palestine referred to in the Old Testament, the history and religion touched upon in the Amoraic and Aramaic inscriptions of the first millen- nium B. C, as well as in the later Greek and Boman sources. It is the purpose of the present study, however, to emphasize espe- cially the material belonging to the history of the early period, when the Amorite empire existed. Incidental references are made, however, to certain facts belonging to the later period, from Egyptian and Biblical sources, which throw light upon questions belonging to the early period. We are here interested chiefly in the Amorites of the third, fourth, and fifth millenniums B. C, when the great empire of the Amorites existed, although the prevailing view is that the Semites of Amurru came out of Arabia as barbarians in the latter part of the third millennium B. C, and later. True, the knowledge we have of their early history is little more than a glimmer here and there, obtained from the records of Babylonia and Egypt, except as we feel the pulse of this people by contact with offshoots that appear in the surrounding lands. It is upon these data that we must largely rely at present ; namely, the influence exerted by the Amorites upon peoples with whom they came in contact through their encroachments upon, and invasions of other lands. The existence of an Amorite civilization as early as the Baby- 20 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Ionian, as well as the inference that Amurru furnished Babylonia with its Semitic inhabitants, as noted, are dependent largely upon the Sumerian and Akkadian inscriptions. Unfortunately at the very beginning of our investigation we are confronted with the difficulty of differentiating between what is Sumerian and what is Semitic. The fact that a name or a religious idea appears in the Sumerian language does not necessarily imply that it is Sumerian. Much that has been credited to the Sumerians has already proved to be Semitic. The idea of the ziggurrat, for example, being a high place, upon which the gods were worshipped, is generally regarded as a Sumerian idea. This seems to be almost entirely due to the fact that the towers bear Sumerian names, as well as the temples with which they are connected. But this is the case even in centres, as far as is known, that have always been Semitic. It is largely because of these names that the Sumerians are regarded as having come from a mountainous district. We know of a certainty that in all early periods of which we have knowledge, the Semite as well as the Sumerian used the lan- guage of the latter. Even in comparatively late periods Sumerian was used for legal purposes ; and up to the very latest, as the litur- gical language. It was used frequently also for monumental purposes in all periods. Lugal-zaggisi used both languages on his monuments (cf. BE I, 87, and UMBS V, 34). The same is true of Sargon {UMBS V, 34, etc.), and kings of the Nisin, Larsa, and Babylon dynasties. Long ago it was argued that Lugal-zaggisi was a Semite, when only his Sumerian inscription was known {BE I, 266-268). It was also maintained that names like Ur-Nina {Kalhi-Nind) , A-Kur- Gal {Apil-Uru), Dun-gi {Bau-uMn, or perhaps Dun-Gir ''the Hero of Gir^'), etc., were Semitic, but that they appeared in a Sumerian garb. Naturally it is possible to transpose most of the Sumerian names into Semitic, because the ancient Oriental and other names had much in common in construction and in meaning, even if not linguistically. While unfortunately it cannot be proved to what extent this was actually done, the custom can be shown to have been practiced. I. INTEODUCTION. 21 For example, in the period of the Larsa dynasty, the golden era of Babylonian history, we know of Semitic names of places which were written phonetically, giving us the exact pronunciation of these names, that were also written in Sumerian; and in some cases the elements are transposed, for example, Ishhun-Nergal, the Semitic name of a city in the fourteenth year of Rim- Sin, is also written in Sumerian, Nergal-gar-ra} Also because of other con- siderations it is very often dilBficult to know from the form in which the personal name appears, whether we have to do with an Akka- dian (i. e. Semitic) or a Sumerian. But this is not without a parallel even in the present time. A Japanese name written ideographically can be also pronounced in Chinese, which would be quite different from Japanese; and in fact unless the name is known to be one or the other, in many instances, it cannot be determined. With the knowledge, there- fore, that a centre was Semitic, and also that the dynasty was Semitic, we have reason to infer that many of the personal names, even though written in Sumerian, were actually Semitic. The same is true of the names of temples, ziggurrats, and deities. Ne- Uru-Gal, ^^Nergal," is the name of a deity in a Sumerian garb, but we know the deity was Semitic. The names of the temples of every city, Akkadian as well as Sumerian, appear with Sumerian names in the inscriptions. This is true even in Amorite lands, for example, the temples at Aleppo, Harran, Tirqa, etc., bore Sumerian names. It is impossible to explain this at the present time in any other way than that it was due to the fact that the Semites had used the language and script of the Sumerians at a very early time, of course, prior to our earliest records. From this we get the impression that we are far from the point of having clear ideas as to where and when the Sem- ites first used the Sumerian cuneiform for their language. Naturally, these are problems which can only approach solution after more is known about the written language of the Semitic peoples other than the Semitic Babylonian, from whom the latter came. At present, absolutely nothing is known of any Semitic script except the Babylonian, prior to the earliest known Phoe- ^ See Grice, Chronology of the Larsa Dynasty, YOB IV 1. 22 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMOBITES. nician and Aramaic alphabetic writing, and this is dated from about 1000 B. C. Semites in Cappadocia already used in the third millennium B. C. what we have been regarding as the Babylonian language and script. A few tablets found in middle Mesopotamia indicate that in the early part of the second millennium the Baby- lonian script was used there. And of course the Amarna letters and the Hittite tablets show that the language and script were used throughout the land in the latter half of the second millen- nium B. C, not only for Semitic tongues but non-Semitic as well. These and other considerations make us conclude that many of the problems involved are far from solution at the present time. We may ultimately find that the Semites had adopted their system of cuneiform writing before they settled in the valley ; or that they did not have a written language for a period after they entered the valley, until the Sumerians invaded and became masters of the land; or we may find that the Semites, bringing with them their culture, invaded the land already occupied by the Sumerians, upon whom, however, they were dependent for their written language, and from which contact their own system of writing evolved. The Sumerian being the parent script and perhaps for a time the only one used by the Semitic Babylonians, it is not difficult to under- stand how its use was very much more extensive in the early period than the script which had evolved from it. While these questions cannot be solved, the writer, in view of the increased light upon the situation covering investigations of a series of years, inclines more and more to the view that the Semitic elements that have been absorbed in the culture we regard as Baby- lonian, are much more numerous than is usually recognized ; and, moreover, that although the names of temples, gods and individ- uals appear in a Sumerian garb, this is no proof that they are not Semitic. Zimmern in his Busspsalmen admitted that the penitential psalms may represent translations from the Semitic Babylonian into Sumerian, and that there were no certain criteria for deter- mining whether a text was of Sumerian or Babylonian origin. Prince in his Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon also takes the posi- tion that many of the Sumerian texts are really * translations of I. INTEODUCTION. 23 Semitic ideas by Semitic priests into the formal religious Sume- rian language/' The late American scholar, Eudolph Brtinnow, in letters published some years ago by Halevy {RA 18, 259 ff.)> took the position that all the so-called bilingual texts revert to Babylonian originals. He inclined to the view that the Semites were the original inhabitants of the valley, and that the Sumerians, on entering, largely adopted the civilization they found in the land. He did not maintain that the origin of the civilization was Semitic, but that it was a product due to the amalgamation of these two races, in which the Semitic element predominated, and eventually gained supremacy. The thought expressed by these writers, that much of the Sumero- Akkadian literature that has been handed down is Semitic and not Sumerian, seems perfectly reasonable in the light of all that is known. Even as regards the religious texts the knowledge that the writing was confined to the scribe or priest, makes it reason- able to infer that the formulae which were intended to invoke the deities or charm the spirits would be couched in a form more or less unintelligible to the pious Semitic applicant. The religious and intellectual leaders were in this way able to awe their clients and keep them dependent upon them by using a language that was unintelligible. Eduard Meyer is also of the opinion that the Semites occupied the land prior to the entrance of the Sumerians, who, he holds, settled in southern Babylonia, drove the Semites northward, and occupied their old cult centres. He bases his argument on the fact that the monuments show that the Sumerians represented their gods with abundant hair and long beards, while they themselves shaved their heads and faces ; also that the garments they repre- sent their gods as wearing are different from those of the people. Since gods are usually depicted wearing the same costume as man, it must follow that the image of the gods, as regards their hair and dress, must have been according to the pattern shown them by their predecessors, whom Meyer thinks were the Semites. To be con- sistent, Meyer would have to admit that the primitive and uncul- tured Semite must have dressed well ; and that the Sumerian, who had the genius for art, was dependent upon him at least for these 24 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. marks of his civilization. This reminds us of the well-dressed Amorites, whom the Egyptian artist depicted in the tomb of Beni- Hassan (see Chapter XIV). The question as to whether the Semites or the Sumerians first occupied the land of Babylonia, is here irrelevant. Suffice it to know that in the earliest history known, we find both present in Sumer as well as in Akkad. In this connection, it seems fitting to discuss briefly the keeping distinct or differentiating between what is Akkadian or Semitic Babylonian and what is West Semitic. In answer to the criticism of Bohl,2 who takes issue with the thesis presented in Amurru on the ground that it does not keep separate these elements, which difference the Babylonians themselves, as early as the time of Hammurabi, clearly recognized, it is only necessary to rehearse what is clearly set forth in Amurru the Home of the Northern Sem- ites. The title of this thesis implies that the home of the Semites who are regarded as the northern branch of the Semitic family, is in the lands west of Babylonia; that the people from this region migrated to the Euphrates valley, and in time were called Akkad- ians ; that periodically, after the civilization of the earliest invaders, influenced by the Sumerians, had been developed into what is peculiarly known as Akkadian, there were invasions or migrations during the succeeding millenniums that brought addi- tional people from the same region into the valley. We are deal- ing with millennia. The civilization under these conditions, after a century or two, would be sufficiently removed from what it was originally, so that the people who came afresh from the old centres would be recognized as foreign. The distinction, naturally, would be more pronounced in centres where Sumerian influences were greater. Each Babylonian city, as we know, represented a principality, and each had its temple and school of scribes which was distinct from other schools. The different appellations of the same sun- deity of the Semites can only be accounted for in this way. The hundreds of names of deities written in Sumerian show that as a rule it was customary to write them ideographically, and that the ^ Kanaander und Hehrder, p. 39. I. INTRODUCTION. 25 ideograms selected were often descriptive of the god's attributes; as for example, ^En-lil, **Lord of the storm''; ^En-amas, ''Lord of the fold"; or, as indicative of the god's origin, ^En-Bin-Ur^\ ''Lord of Babylon." It can scarcely be thought possible that all the gods' names in Sumerian were in common usage pronounced as written, for example: '^Nin-a-dam-azag-ga, ^Nin-igi-d-har-ra, ^TJmun-had-urudu-nagar-lc% etc. Other ideographically written names of deities, however, even though originally not intended to be pronounced as such, for example, ^Ne-TJru-gal, perhaps "light of the great Uru," '^Amar-TJtug, a syncretistic formation, '^En-lil "lord of the storm," ^Nin-gal "great lady," etc., in time were called or pronounced Nergal, Marduk, EUil, and Nikkal respec- tively. The actual name of the deity En-lil, however, may have been Adad, Shara, Ura, or some other name of the storm-deity. In other words, the ideogram itself in some instances was pronounced and came into use, and even displaced the original name of the deity. It is understood that ^Nin-Gir-Su, Lady of Grirsu, at Telloh, was a deity similar if not identical with ^Nin-IB at Nippur. The name of the latter we now know was pronounced Inurta or Inmashtu in the late period (see Chapter XYII). It would not be surprising to learn that ^Nin-Gir-Su originally was simply another ideogram used at Telloh for the same name Urta or Inurta. Doubtless, the ideogram '^Nin-Mar''* and many others were originally the same. At Umma the name of the deity Shara was perhaps without any exception written in that city with the sign Lagab with igi-gunu, inserted, and yet there are reasons for holding the view that Shara was a very common name or element found in the appellations of deities and temples, not only in Babylonia but in Amurru (see Chapter XVII, and MI p. 14). While most of the several thousand names of Babylonian deities appear in Sumerian dress, from the few whose actual pronunciation we now know we have reason for believing that the origin of a very large number of the ideograph- ically written names in Sumerian was Semitic. As an illustration, let us think of the original Semites entering Babylonia from Amurru with their deity 'Amor ( 'Amur= 'Awur= 'Uru). In a thousand years, under circumstances referred to above, not only could the name have suffered modifications, but \%% 26 THE EMPIBE OF THE AMORITES. the conception of the deity as well. Even in Amurru, during the thousand years under different influence, the conception of the deity as well as the pronunciation of its name may have suffered modi- fication, so that there would be quite a gap between this cult of the peoples living in Babylonia and the newcomers. In other words, we must look upon the Semites, who had originally entered Baby- lonia from the wide area of Amurru, as having modified under other influences their religious conceptions. Different names for their storm-deity had in the meanwhile arisen in the different centres occupied by Semites, which, as was said, were more or less distinct from each other and under different influences. In other words, in a thousand years, under influences of this kind, a culture would have developed quite distinct from what had previously been brought into the land. With these conditions in mind, it is quite understandable that the priests and the guild of scribes would look upon the fresh influx of Amorites as foreigners, and as possessing a cult quite distinct from their own. The same was true with refer- ence to personal names ; for example, the name Ishme-Dagan was originally Amorite, and was pronounced Jashma^-Dagan in Amurru, but it had long been Babylonized and pronounced Ishme- Dagan. When, however, fresh invasions brought men bearing the name into the country the difference in the pronunciation was noted, for the scribes wrote Ja-as-ma-'-^Da-gan. In other words, in a generation or so the foreign Semites were more or less Baby- Ionized, or were absorbed completely by the Akkadians; and if there were no fresh influx, foreign names either gave way to Akka- dian, or the nomenclature gradually ceased to show any distinction in the pronunciation. This is shown by a study of the names in the . period of the Cassite dynasty, which followed that of the West Semitic Larsa, Nisin, and Babylon dynasties, when Amorite names abounded. In the Cassite period, owing to the inactivity of the Amorites, West Semitic names very generally disappeared. The cult of the individual family was doubtless given up for that of the land, with which it had much in conunon. The distinction, therefore, as to what is West Semitic and what is Akkadian, was clearly made in Amurru (in spite of the asser- tion of Bohl, mentioned above), and is kept in mind throughout this discussion. II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES There are those who hold the view that the Semites and the Hamites were originally one race, and lived in Northern Africa, whence the Semites passed over into Arabia, and from there were dispersed. The view, however, that Arabia was the original home of the Semites is generally accepted by scholars. The Semites that are found in other lands surrounding Arabia are regarded simply as successive migrations of Arabs that have deposited them- selves layer upon layer in those lands. The migrations, due to over-population, have recurred periodically. We are told that Arabia breeds vast numbers of its nomad tribes, but it can not support them ; that a thousand years was required to fill Arabia up to the point when it could no longer sustain its inhabitants, and in consequence they migrated to adjacent lands. With slight varia- tions this * stock' theory has been used by a succession of writers. They tell us that the fi.rst migration of which we have knowledge brought the Semites into Babylonia. The second migration is represented by the Semitic outbursts on Palestine between 2500 to 2000 B. C, and accounts also for the Semitic invasion of Babylonia when the rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon controlled the land ; this theory, however, has recently been modified. The third periodical disgorging of Arabia is known as the ''Aramaean migra- tion,'' when the land again ''spat out." Some hold that this migration began near the middle of the second millennium B. C, and others that they first moved out in the thirteenth century. This migration took the Aramaeans into Syria and Mesopotamia, and their kindred tribe, the Hebrews, into Palestine. The next so- called "spiUing over" period, or "sporadic wave of hungry tribes- men," was from the fifth century, when the Nabataeans moved upon Petra. And the last is when Islam invaded Western Asia and parts of Europe. In nearly every work that is examined on the history of Semitic peoples, some form of these statements, making Arabia the cradle of the Semites, or making all Semitic peoples come from Arabia, is found. (27) 28 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. One of the earliest writers to have maintained that Arabia was the primitive home of the Semites was the German scholar Sprenger who in his Das Lehen und Lehre des Mohammed (1861, 241 ff.), and in later works, maintained that agriculturists do not become nomads, and that all Semites are Arabs. Sayce, as early as 1872, declared that the Semitic traditions all point to Arabia as the original home of the race ; it is the only part of the world which has remained exclusively Semitic. The racial characteristics — intensity of faith, ferocity, exclusiveness, imagination — can best be explained by a desert origin. Schrader, De Goeje, Wright, and Meyer, were other writers who held similar views.^ The periodical wave theory seems to have been originated by Winckler who in his Geschichte Bahyloniens und Assyriens says : * ' The home of the Semites was Arabia, due to geographical consid- erations and to the fact that the purest Semites are at present found in that land. The migrations are due to over-population and recur periodically. He said, *'we have definite knowledge of four main Semitic migrations northward. ' ' These are in reverse order : 1. The Arabian, which began in the seventh century A. D., and culminated in the conquest of Islam ; 2. the Aramaic, from the fifteenth to the thirteenth century B. C. ; 3. the Amorite, a thousand years earlier, 2400-2100 B. C, and 4. another, a thousand years earlier when Babylonia was settled by the Semites. This thousand year disgorging theory has been adopted by many English and American writers. In Paton's words: ''Thus it appears that it took a thousand years each time to fill Arabia up to the point when it could no longer hold its inhabitants but must disgorge them upon the adjacent lands.'' In addition to the four migrations assumed by Winckler, Paton adds the so-called earlier Nabataean, which is placed as beginning about 500 B. C.^ Barton in his Semitic Origins (1902) developed the Arabian theory in a more elaborate manner than previously had been done. Even though one does not agree with the position taken by Barton, he cannot help admiring his full and thorough treatment of the subject. Not only does he look upon Arabia as the cradle-land of ^ For the literature on the subject, see Barton, Semitic Origins. " Early History of Syria, p. 7, 211, etc. II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 29 the Semites, but upon North Africa as the place of the ultimate origin of the Hamito-Semitic races, which he claims are kindred. After the migration of the Semites into Arabia, some of their Hamitic brethren, who until then had been nomads, displaced the Negroids in the valley of the Nile, learned agriculture, and formed the race of the Egyptians.^ His arguments for Arabia being the home of the Semites, follow : 1. Semites are now in Arabia and in contiguous lands, Babylonia, Syria, Abyssinia, etc., lands more fertile than Arabia, in which agriculture has been practised from time immemorial. 2. During the historic period, wave after wave of Arabs has been pouring from Arabia into the surrounding lands ; it is probable that the migration has always been that way, and not vice versa. 3. It may be regarded as a law of social progress that nomads pass from a sterile to a fertile country, and become agriculturists; but not from a fertile to a sterile country, and change from agriculturists to nomads. It is inconceivable, if Sem- ites originated in a land more fertile tlian Arabia, that they should have migrated thither. 4. The Arabic language, where the race has been protected by deserts, has preserved the characteristics of primitive Semitic speech much more fully than any other Semitic tongue. 5. The Arabs, better than other Semites, have preserved the racial characteristics of ferocity, exclusiveness, intensity of faith, and imagination. In his review of these successive waves, LuckenbiU also adopted the theory. He said the first wave from the desert of Arabia to the north took the Babylonians of the Dynasty of Sargon about 2500 B. C. into the Euphrates valley, and they were perhaps the founders of Phoenicia. The next wave brought the First or Ham- murabi Dynasty into Babylonia, and the Canaanites into Canaan. The next took the Aramaeans into Syria and Mesopotamia, and their kindred tribes, the Hebrews, Amorites, Moabites and Edom- ites, into Palestine ca. 1500 B. C* ^ This latter view is supported with linguistic evidence by Barton ia JA08 35 214 ft. * Biblical World 1910, p. 22 ; and AJSL 28 p. 154. It is only fair to LuckenbiU to state that in an article which recently appeared {AJT 1918, p. 30), he accepts the view that the Hammurabi Dynasty is West Semitic. 30 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Macalister is another writer who has accepted these 'stock' views as facts. He says: *'for though Arabia may breed vast numbers of its nomad tribes it cannot support them; and though the struggle for existence may be dkninished artificially by the inhabitants, by means of intertribal battles and, in ancient times, of infanticide, yet a time comes periodically when necessity forces its surplus population to overrun the more fertile neighboring lands. The country, as has been noticed, comes into prominence historically every thousand years, more or less." {Civilization in Palestine, p. 27.) Although regarding the origin of the First Dynasty as Amorite, King nevertheless looks upon Arabia as the cradle of the Semites. He traces four great Semitic migrations. The first settled North- ern Babylonia ; the second, which was the Canaanite or Amorite, took place in the third millennium B. C. The third was the Aramaean in the fourteenth century, which established its kingdom in Syria with its capital at Damascus ; and the fourth took place in the seventh century of our era {EB p. 125). It would serve no purpose to multiply quotations from writers who share these views. Suffice it to repeat what is said above, that most scholars have accepted these periodical waves of emigration from Arabia as historical facts. It is not the writer's purpose to discuss or attempt to decide between contending scientists concerning the ultimate origin and gradual formation of the Semitic race, its separation from the so-called Hamito-Semitic race, the millenniums required to develop the striking racial difference, the conditions under which Semitic characteristics developed, and all other anthropological inquiries concerning the origin of Semitic society. The writer has waded through masses of conjectures on these points, based almost entirely upon hypotheses, such as Anthropologists must largely confine themselves to, but he prefers to base his own conclusion alone upon historical or archaeological data and traditions ; which of course leaves untouched the ultimate origin of this race. Arabia is a land of great contrasts. One-half of the country is composed of sandy deserts, with wide areas of shifting sand, where water is difficult to obtain, and famine is always imminent. In II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 31 » many of these parts it is only after the spring rains that the soil furnishes a meagre subsistence for the Bedouin. It should be noted, however, that there is a river system which includes the region of the wadies ; but the rivers never reach the sea. These in midsummer are dry. In such sterile places, no permanent settle- ments can be looked for. Elsewhere, there are great and small oases. Then there are extensive fertile highlands and pastures. In the great tropical districts on the coast of the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and in Southern Arabia, the land of frankincense, myrrh, coffee, spices, and perfumes, there is natu- rally all that is required for a great civilization. The same is true also of the mountainous districts of Arabia. The question arises in this connection, was the climate of Arabia in ancient times the same as to-day? Hommel, who has made a careful study of the work of the explorers of Arabia, says : ''It is safe to assume that in ancient times there was much more water than at present."^ Ellsworth Huntington maintains that great changes in the climate of Central Asia have taken place during historic times. He has shown how great tracts of territory which at one time were populated are at the present desert, or mitigated desert, which supports vegetation only part of the year. He tells us that * ' Syria and Northern Arabia, from three to five hundred miles south of Lake Gyoljuk, present phenomena almost identical with those of Central Asia. Mr. F. A. Norris, a member of the Prince- ton Expedition to that region in 1904-5, states that a large number of ruins lie in the desert in a location where to-day there is no ade- quate water supply, and where it would be impossible to secure sufficient water with the system of irrigation employed when the ruined cities were in their prime. Elsewhere the water which appears formerly to have supported oases is now saline. The ruins date from the beginning of the Christian Era. ' ' (The Pulse of Asia 367 f.) This change of climate, Huntington claims, has been observed to have taken place also in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and even in Egypt. If the desert portion of Arabia in ancient times was less sterile ^ ** Arabia," in Explorations in Bible Lands 694 if. 32 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. than at present, and the wadies, which are so clearly defined in cer- tain parts of the land, contained water for at least the greater part of the year, one can readily understand how tribes with great flocks would pass into this country even from the north. It is only nec- essary to take into consideration the fact that great Bedouin tribes at present occupy these sterile districts in the seasons of the year when rains, for the time being, restore fertility; after which they move to other parts where subsistence is possible. As history has made us acquainted with the fact that in the earliest period there were permanent cities or habitations of peoples engaged in agricultural pursuits, the question as to whether the nomad preceded the agriculturist, or vice versa, belongs to the sphere of anthropology. Moreover, history and tradition make us acquainted with a great nation, including nomadic tribes in the northern regions of the Semitic world in the earliest period known ; and what is still more to the point, movements of the people east- ward into Babylonia, and of the nomadic tribes southward into Arabia. The fact that the Arabic language preserves more fully the char- acteristics of primitive Semitic speech, it seems to the writer, as it has to others, is evidence only of the fact that Arabia was settled by Semites prior to the time when the Semitic languages with which we are familiar had suffered decay, or rather such modifications as usually follow the development of civilization. The language oP Arabia, even at the present time, three thousand years later than the period to which the earliest South Arabian inscriptions belong, can be said to have retained many of the characteristics of primi- tive Semitic speech which the other Semitic languages had lost millenniums ago. The conditions of life in Arabia are responsible for the permanency not only of language but also customs and manners, which fact is so well understood. In the great centres along the Euphrates, in Aram, or along the Mediterranean, which were not isolated, as in Arabia, development was more rapid. As an illustration, the English language of several centuries ago is better preserved in parts of England less affected by such metropo- lises as London. The most primitive French spoken at the pres- ent time is not heard in Paris, but in isolated districts, which have seen the least development. It seems to the writer that the lin- II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 33 guistic argument, so frequently used in support of the theory of the Arabian origin, needs no refutation. In connection with the argument that exclusiveness, intensity of faith, imagination and ferocity are all racial characteristics of the Semites, and that Arabs have better preserved them, it need only be said, if this is correct, that the climate and other existing condi- tions are responsible for the pronounced character of these pecu- liarities of the Arabs. The argument based upon the so-called waves of migration is the one which is so cogently pressed by the advocates of the theory, and is fortunately the one we can fully test by history and tradition. To do so, it is necessary to ascertain, as the first step to be taken, what characteristic features of civilization we can take cognizance of that are peculiar to the Arabian. Owing to the conditions prevailing in Arabia, little .more than cursory explorations have been possible, and these have often been conducted under most trying circumstances.^ Nevertheless, during the past century there has been a rich gathering of inscriptions, dating, as some scholars hold, from about 1000 B. C, while others maintain even an earlier date. A great antiquity, however, for Arabian civilization must be assumed. Perhaps the earliest ref- erence to the land in the Babylonian inscriptions is found in an omen tablet and in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle which record the successful expedition of Naram-Sin against the land of Magan, and the taking of its king captive, whose name was Mannu-dannu. (King Chron. II 51 f.) Magan is regarded by some as being in the Sinaitic Peninsula; but by others as a part of Eastern Arabia, which region is more accessible to Babylonia. A little later, Gudea mentions having transported heavy blocks of diorite from Magan (F5Ip. 66, etc.). The Arabian inscriptions, above referred to, came from four chief nations, the Minaeans, Hadhramotians, Qatabanians and the Sabaea-Himyarites. It is by the help of these inscriptions that considerable knowledge of ancient Arabia has been gained. For the present discussion of the Arabian theory let us note some of the names of the chief gods contained in these inscriptions, as well ^ See Hommel, "Arabia," in Explorations in BiMe Lands. 34 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. as the composition of the personal names, in order to test the claim that the civilization of the Amorites, Hebrews and Babylonians had its origin in Arabia. The chief deity in these inscriptions is the god 'Athtar, who is the personification of both the morning and evening stars. It is generally thought that the god 'Athtar and the goddess Ashirta or Ishtar were originally the same deity. Some hold that Athtar was the earlier form, but see Chapter XVII. The second deity in importance is the moon-god, who has a different appellation among each of the four peoples mentioned. The Minaeans called him Wadd; the Hadhraxaotians called him Sin (doubtless, borrowed from the Western Semites) ; among the Qatabanians he was named 'Amm; and by the Sabaeans, Ilmaqqah or Almaqu-hu. The third deity of the South Arabian pantheon was called An-Kurah by the Minaeans, Huwal or Hoi by the Hadhramotians, and Anbay (regarded the same as Nabu) by the Qatabanians. Sun deities, who are always goddesses, usually with local names, tutelary deities of cities such as Ta'lab of Riyam, the god Sam?, Nasr, Qainan, Bam man in Shibam (doubtless, to be identified with the Rimmon of Damascus, or Ramman of the Babylonians), Hagir, Dhu-Samwa, Dhaw, Motab-Natiyan, Niswar, II Fakhr, Zur, are some of the prominent deities mentioned in the inscriptions.''' In short, these South Arabian inscriptions offer considerable material on the deities of the land. And from our knowledge of the per- manency of the manners and customs of the land it is safe to con- jecture that in the periods preceding that of these inscriptions the religion very likely was in a general way practically the same. The study of the personal names as an adjunct of the religious ideas expressed in the inscriptions furnishes also valuable criteria, since they indicate what deities the people worshipped. It is scarcely possible that any one would regard the moon-god Sin as of Arabian origin because the inscriptions show that he was worshipped by the Hadhramotians, and because his name is prob- ably connected with the mountain called Sinai and with the desert ^ See Hommel "Arabia," in Explorations in Bible Lands, 733 ff., and Filter "Index of the South Arabian Proper Names," PSBA, 1917, 99-112, 115-132. II. THE HOME OF THE SEMITES. 35 called Wilderness of Sin. And it is scarcely possible that any one would regard Nabu as Arabian because of the name of the god Anbay, worshipped by the Qatabanians, who is considered by some to be the same. Hadad, whose name occurs in two inscriptions, would scarcely be regarded otherwise than an importation. In short, there can be no question but that these three gods are West Semitic (see Chapter XVII). We have seen that if movements of peoples have taken place, there will be unmistakable evidence of them in case large groups of personal names have been preserved ; and that in the absence of definite historical statements concerning conquests, invasions, bondages, etc., no better evidence is known than that secured from a study of the personal names. Having before us the elements of the ancient Arabic civilization that we should expect would be carried with the people if they migrated, as has been claimed, as did the Amorites, Hittites, Cassites, etc., we inquire to what extent have those which are peculiarly Arabic been transported to the other lands, in these so-called five periodical waves of migration. The burden of the proof, naturally, that such evidence exists, and that these waves actually took place, lies with those who hold these views ; nevertheless, let us inquire whether there are any grounds upon which these hypotheses can rest. In searching for evidence in the Babylonian inscriptions and other legends bearing on the early history of that land, we first note that the legendary list of ante-diluvian kings of Chaldea handed down by Berossus, shows that the names are Amorite^ (see Chapter VIII). The early dynastic lists, as we shall see, show the same. In the votive inscriptions, the religious texts, the building inscrip- tions, the seal impressions on tablets, etc., we look in vain for anything that is characteristically Arabian. On the other hand, the influence from Amurru, whose civilization is as old if not older ^ Syncellus gives two dynasties after the flood, the first he designates as Chaldean, and the second Arabian ; the names of the latter are : MapSoKcvri^s, MapBaKO The view was advanced by the writer {JAOS 28 135 f.) that the first ^4: THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. p. 328), but the initial n appears to have been dropped; like Isin from Nisin. Although Inurta, who was unquestionably a goddess originally, became a god in later Babylonia, traces are found show- ing that her former sex was recognized. In a letter found in the British Museum (Harper ABL 358: 6), and in one in the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania {HAV p. 424) the salutation repeats the name ; in the former ^Nirtr-IB '^Nin-IB is written, and in the latter ^MAS u "^MAS, showing that both the god and the goddess are addressed. Additional proof that '^Nin-IB or Inurta is to be identified with Amurru or Uru is to be found in the explanatory list of deities.^^ In the Amarna letters there is a place Bit Nin-IB mentioned and also a temple in or near Jerusalem called ""^Bit '^Nin-IB; showing that the deity was worshipped in that region. One scholar had suggested that Nin-IB is here an ideogram for Shamash, and that the place referred to is Beth-Shemesh. Another has suggested that it stands for Antum, and the name is Beth-Anath. The only basis for these suggestions is that such shrines are known to have existed in Palestine ; but this does not appear to have much force. Since Antu was the consort of Anu, Ashirtu of Ashir, Mashtu of Mash, etc., it seems reasonable, as mentioned above, that Urtu(a) should have been the consort of the Amorite Uru. Since the name Jeru- salem was written Uru-salim in the Amarna tablets and the same in the Nabataean inscriptions (D'7tJ^*l1N), there is every reason two characters of the Aramaic represented the Sumerian en = ha'al. This finds support in the name En-Ur-ta {CT 24, 25 : 101) ; but, in the light of the recent find, the prefixed element probably must be regarded as being originally {n)in i. e., ha'alat *4ady," although after the deity was mas- culinized and the initial n dropped, it may have been construed as en "lord"; then since in the late period r frequently passes into s, In-urta could be pronounced In-usta, which would be reproduced in Aramaic 'nwst (ntriJN). 21 d u.rumUru{PIN) —Nin-IB sa al-li, CT 25 11:26. Another passage shows that ^Nin-uru {PIN) = ^Nin-IB, CT 25 12:20; and again that Amurru, written '^Mar — ^Nin-IB, III R 57 : 81 cd. There can be little doubt but that Nin-Mar^^ (cf. Nin-Mar^^-ra, Allotte de la Fuye Doc. Presar- goniques 55:1, 7), who was so prominently worshipped at Lagash, was another writing of the name. (On Mar''^ see also Chapter X.) VII. THE NAME AMUBBU OB UBU. 75 to think that it contains the name of the deity Uru (see Amurru 175 ff.), and it seems reasonable to propose that BU ^Nin-IB is the cuneiform representation of a shrine of his consort, which was near the city. That it appears in the Babylonian ideogram which means ha'alat JJrta, is simply due to the use of the Babylonian language and script at that time in Palestine. The question arises, where is the habitat of the deity Amurru, whose name was written Amar or Amur, Mar, Mer, Mir, 'tlr, and his consort Martu (Mashtu) or Urtu. The answer to this question will doubtless point to the imperial city of the great land Amurru (see Chapter X). VIII AMORITES IN BABYLONIA Since we are entirely dependent upon data gathered from con- temporaneous records of Babylonia for our knowledge of the early existence of Amorite history and civilization, these are first con- sidered. The Amorites have handed down a list of ten antediluvian kings, corresponding to the ten antediluvian patriarchs. True, they are called Chaldean kings, but they nevertheless are Amorite, the legend doubtless having been brought into Babylonia with the people who migrated from the West. Berossus, who lived in the first half of the third century B. C, wrote three books which he dedicated to Antiochus, king of Syria. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few fragments copied by ApoUodorus and Poly- histor, and which were quoted by Eusebius and Syncellus, his important work has been lost. The antediluvian kings mentioned in these fragments are as follows.^ 1 'A\G>po<», Aloros ; ck Ba^v\copo<; ^aXSaio^ 10 Saren (36000 years) 2 'AkaTrapot, Alaparus, Alaporus, Alapaurus ; filius Alori 3 Saren 3 'AfirjXcov, 'A/j>iKXapoTiap- Tov 18 Saren Zimmern, Hommel, Jeremias, Sayce, Kittel and others, as men- tioned in Amurru 63 ff., consider that several of the names were translated into Hebrew, and form the list of antediluvian patri- archs of the Old Testament, while others are considered equivalent to Babylonian names. Aloros has been generally regarded the same as the Babylonian mother-goddess Aruru,^ who assisted in the work of creation. The chief reason why this goddess is considered the same as the first Chaldean king is because she is the 'fashioner of mankind. ' Alaporus has. been considered to be a corruption of Adapa, which is thought to be the original of Adam. Amillaros or Almelon is said to be the Babylonian amelu, *'man," which was translated, into the Hebrew, Enosh, ''man." Ammenon is regarded the same as ummdnu, "workman," which was translated into Qenan or Cain, "smith," although no such personal name as ummdnu is known. Megalaros or Amegalarus is considered by Hommel to be Amel-Aruru. Edoranchus, the seventh king corre- sponding to Enoch, seventh in the Hebrew list, has been regarded the same as En-me-dur-an-ki, a mythological king of Sippar, who received revelations from his deity, and ruled 365 years, the same number that Enoch lived. The king Edoranchus, however, ruled 64,800 years according to the list of Berossus. Otiartes has been regarded the same as TJhar-Twtu, and as Atar-hasis (see also Bar- ton ^c^ 5 271). The writer believes that these scholars are mistaken in their sup- position that the Hebrew names of the antediluvian patriarchs originated in this way. Although both lists contain ten names, and the tenth in both is a diluvian hero, they seem to have nothing else in common (see Amurru 63 f.). The coincidence that the number of years Enoch lived, and the Sippar king ruled, whose name is written in Sumerian En-BIe-Dur-An-Ki, is the same, is striking, ^ Poebel, however, has proposed identification of this name with LAL-ur- alim-ma of Nippur. UMB8 IV 1, 110. 78 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. but any relation between the two individuals or their names is scarcely to be regarded as possible. Moreover, since the other names are in a Semitic form, it (EveSwpaxos) would be preferable to read it also Semitic, perhaps Ehed-'Ur ahu, i. e., ^'Ebed-'Ur, the brother, ' ' namely of the preceding king. Following in the second column are the comparisons and identifications or equivalents that have been proposed by different scholars, and in the third, those offered by the writer : 1 'AA.a)po5, Aloros Aruru EWru^ 2 'AAttTrapos, Alaparus Adapa Alap-l^ru* 3 'AjtxtAAa/3os, 'A/A>/Aa)v, Almelon Amelu Amel-tfru^ 4 'A/x/xevojv, ATnmenon ummanu 5 MeyaAapos, Amegalarus Amel-Aruru Megal-tfru^ 6 Aawj/os, Aaojs, Davonus 7 EueSwpaxo5, Edoranchus En-Me-Dur-An-Ki Eded-Uru ahu 8 'Afieixxl/ivos, Amemphsinus Amel-Sin Amel-Sin 9 Q,Tiapn]e dea Syria) , with which name Humbaba has frequently been compared. Moreover, the name is actually found also in the Old Testament Hobab,^^ the son of Reuel (Numb. 10 : 29, Judg. 4: 11, etc.). In the omens, the name Huwawa suggests a monster.^^ Two of the omens read : * ' If a women gives birth to a Huwawa, the king and his sons will leave the city. If a sheep gives birth to a lion with a face of a Huwawa, the prince will be without a rival, and will destroy the land of the enemy. "^^ In the epic the name of this Amorite despot, ''whose roar is a deluge, whose breath is death,'' has the determinative for deity, the same as the name Gilgamesh (which is written '^Gis) and Enkidu. Since it is reasonably certain that the cedar forests of Humbaba were those of Amurru, and this is the region whence Enkidu came, it is highly probable that the latter also was an Amorite. This being true, there can be little question that the Sumerian form of his name, as above, represented a Semitic name, which may have been Ea-tob. This would appear very reasonable, especially if the contention of Chiera that Ea is a West Semitic god should prove correct. Jastrow would now propose the reading Ba' al-tob as the Semitic original of the name ; that is, En-Ki ''lord of land" represents the "West Semitic Ba' al. As stated, the epic is not only Semitic, but there are many ele- ments which show connections with the Western Semites, such as the gods Girra, Urra, Adad, Irnini, Antu, etc., and personal names such as Atrahasis, Buzur- Amurru, etc. Whether Gilgamesh, who ^^ Gressman, Das Gilgamesh-Epos, p. Ill, f . 1 ; Poebel UMBS IV 1, p. 224; and Jastrow, Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East I, p. 193. ^^ Hubdba = Homhaha = Hohhaha = Hoiala. 1" The passages where it occurs are CT 28, 3 : 17, 4 : 89, 6 : 3-4, 14 : 12, 21 : 28. I am indebted to Professor Jastrow for these references. 2" In the passage CT 28, 6 : 3-4, both the early and late forms of the name appear. VIII. AMOEITES IN BABYLONIA. 89 was a usurper, was from the West, or not, remains to be deter- mined. If he were, the question arises, what was his western name? In Amurru, p. 79, the endeavor was made to show that the name which became contracted into Gilgamesh means ''the axe of Mash" (see also MI p. 3 n.). Such a name, however, would scarcely be appropriate for a child. How is it to be explained? It is possible to offer several conjectures; but let the following suffice. The hero's name may originally have been Bilga-Mash or Pilig- Mash, and meant ''the offshoot of the god Mash." Such forma- tions and meanings are very common (see the discussion on Peleg, above). In later years, after he had become the legendary hero, to whom were attributed the exploits of Enkidu, and perhaps others, as is shown from the Pennsylvania tablet,^^ his name was etymologically interpreted in accordance with the reputation he had acquired just as is done in the Old Testament in the case of Abram and others. It is only necessary to read the epic to see how frequently the axe (or spear) ^^ is mentioned; it doubtless played an important role as his weapon. In consequence, when in later times the legend was committed to writing it was merely nec- essary to place the determinative gis before Bilga. Still another, and perhaps more simple explanation of the name might be, that it means "Gish is an oif shoot of Mash." Unfortunately the signifi- cance of Gish which figures so prominently as an element in names, is not altogether clear; though the equivalent idlu "hero," offers a point of departure.^^ Moreover, these are only tentative expla- nations of this difficult name, which are offered with considerable reserve. The earliest Amorite king, who by his inscription informs us that he had conquered Babylonia, is . , . -um-Shamash, king of Mari, and Patesi-gal of Enlil, which means that he was suzerain 2^ See Jastrow in the forthcoming An Old Babylonian Yersion of the Gilgamesh Epic, 22 Cf. the instruments held by two figures supposedly Gilgamesh and Enkidu, on the terra-cotta relief found in the Yale Babylonian Collection, see Art and Archaeology Y p. 73. 22 On the element Mash, Mesh, etc., see also Chapter XVII. 90 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. over the land. His inscription belongs to a very early period; see further Chapter X. A number of the rulers' names in the very early dynasties are Amorite ; for example, I-su-il of the Opis dynasty, El-muti of the Kish. Doubtless all the rulers of these two dynasties were Semites whose ancestors had come from Amurru. Eannatum, patesi of Lagash, records in one of his inscriptions the coalition of the Amorite city Mari with Kish and Opis against him, which he defeated ; see further Chapter X. Lugal-zaggisi, the son of Ukush, as mentioned, is considered by some to be a Semite. The tradition concerning Sargon's origin is that he was born in ''Azupiranu which lies on the bank of the Euphrates." The great conqueror of Elam and Barahsu, Uru-mush, bears an Amorite name. The obelisk of Manishtusu of the Kish-Akkad dynasty contains an especially large number of Amorite names. They are com- pounded with the names of Adda, Mir-Dadu, Mir-Shar, I-lu-Me-ir, Ba'al, Bar-ra, perhaps Malik, etc. Contracts of this era are known, but unfortunately Sumerian being generally the language in which they appear, most of the names are written with Sumerian ideograms, which make it in most cases impossible to determine whether they represent Sumerian or Semitic names. Such a docu- ment, however, as the Obelisk, which is written in Semitic, gives reasons for believing that many Amorites lived in the land. Recently Scheil published a cylinder seal belonging to the period of the first kings of the Kish-Akkad dynasty, which bears the name of Is-re-il, son of Rish-Zuni, and which he equates with the Hebrew name Israel. More than a decade ago the writer advanced the idea that the rulers^ names of the Nisin dynasty seemed to show that many of them were Amorites {JAOS 1907, p. 8). The name of the founder, namely, Isbi-Urra, also another containing the same deity, namely, Urra-imitti, as well as others compounded with the names Dagan and Ishtar, pointed to this conclusion. Recently Barton published an oracle which shows that Ishbi-Urra, the founder of the dynasty, came from Mari on the Euphrates {MB I 9: 4, 22), thus confirming the view that the rulers were West Semitic. As mentioned above (note 9), the Armenian translation of Eusebius calls the eight VIII. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 91 « rulers of this period Amorite (Mar), instead of the usual * ^ Median. ' ^ A date formula of a tablet belonging to the reign of Libit-Ishtar of the Msin dynasty seems to point to an interruption of the dynasty of Ishbi-Urra by another Amorite named UR-In- urta.24 The Larsa dynasty, which was founded about the same time as the Nisin dynasty (see MI p. 41), was also Amorite, as is shown by the names of the rulers. The Larsa dynastic tablet recently discovered in the ruins of that city, and now in the Yale Babylonian Collection, reads : 21 years Na-ap-la-nu-um 28 years E-mi-m 35 years Sa-mu-um 9 years Za-ia-a-a 27 years Gu-un-gu-nu-um 11 years A-hi-sa^ri-e 29 years Su-mu-ilu 16 years Nu-ur-^Immer 7(?) years '^Sin-i-din-nam 2 years '^Sin-i-ri-ha-am 6(?) years ^8in-i-qi-sa-am 1 year Sili-{li)-'^Immer 12 years Warad-'^Sin 61 years '^Ri-im-'^Sin 12(?) years '^Ha-am-mu-ra-hi 12 years Sa-am-su-i-lu-na, king 289 years. ^* This date formula (CT 4, 22) has been the subject of considerable discussion. Ranke read it: Mu sa Li-hi-it-Istar A-mu-ru-um it-ru-du-us ''The year in which the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar" (OLZ 1907, 109 ff.). Meissner translated it: "The year in which the city Amurum drove out Libit-Ishtar" (ibid. 109 ff.). Ungnad translated it, "The year when Lipit-Ishtar, the Amorite, was banished." From the Ur-Nisin dynastic list it is clear that Libit-Ishtar 's successor did not belong to the ruling family. King suggests the date means that the Amorites who overthrew the king were dislodged by UR-Inurta, who retook the city and established his own family upon the throne (SA p. 315). It is not unreasonable to maintain that UR-Inurta was an Amorite, perhaps from another quarter than that whence Ishbi-Urra, the founder of the dynasty, came. 92 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. Thureau-Dangin in a recent number of the Revue d'Assyriologie has published an important rectangular prism, now in the Louvre, which, if perfect, would have duplicated almost completely the above, giving at the same time the formulae for all the years begin- ning with Gungunu. The above list fortunately gives the number of years which are broken away from the Louvre prism, and it supplies the names of the rulers with the number of years they reigned from Abi-sare to Warad-Sin.^'^ , Some interesting observations are possible in connection with these dynastic lists and what has been said above. "We had no knowledge of the first four reigns, and also of others in the list from any source prior to the discovery of these important records, although Naplanum ruled 21 years, Emisu 28, Samum 35, and Zabaia 9. These names, as well as others that follow, are Amorite. The time they ruled, namely, almost a century in length, is, there- fore, one of those dark periods of inactivity, mentioned above. Even the date formulae apparently were unknown when the Louvre prism was inscribed, for they begin with the reign of Gungunu. This king is mentioned in the date formulae of the contracts that have thus far been published ; and he is also the first of the dynasty who is mentioned in other known inscriptions. Enannatum, a son of Ishme-Dagan of Nisin, who was chief priest at the city of Ur, has handed down inscribed clay cones, in which he records the rebuilding of the temple of the sun-god at Larsa for the preserva- tion of his own life and that of Gungninu, the king of Ur (SA 310 f.). This ruler, in a brick inscription, in which he commem- orates the building of a great wall at Larsa, calls himself king of Larsa as well as of Sumer and Akkad. The cones show that he also ruled Ur. " The Yale tablet contained the same inscription on both sides, but with the exception of a few characters on the reverse, which happen to be very important in restoring the figures on the obverse, that side is broken away. Unfortunately the numbers on the obverse also have suffered, yet it can be restored nearly completely with the aid of what remained on the reverse. For a full discussion of the Larsa date formulae see Thureau- Dangin BA XV 1 ff. and Grice Chronology of the Larsa Dynasty (YOR 4, part 1). Vni. AMORITES IN BABYLONIA. 93 Since the first four rulers of this dynasty have left no traces of their rule, except in the dynastic tablet and prism, perhaps they sat on thrones far removed from Larsa, somewhere on the Euphrates. The fact that their reigns were not of short duration shows that they were not feeble rulers. It has been held for many years by Hilprecht that there was active hostility against Babylonia on the part of Elam at this time, when UR-Inurta (^^Nin-IB) usurped the throne of Nisin. But there is no justification for supposing an Elamite invasion at this time. It is, however, highly probable that the evidences of vandal- ism which Haynes, who excavated Nippur, had observed beneath the pavement in the temple of UR-Inurta were caused by the Amorites, either when the dynasty was established or possibly when a fresh invasion of Amorites displaced those who had pre- ceded them. Gungunu of the Larsa Dynasty was an Amorite, as the Amorite Name Syllabary shows. His reign synchronizes with the long one of UR-Inurta. It is not impossible that both were usurpers and represented a fresh influx of Amorites. Decades later the Elamites did appear on the scene, when Warad-Sin, fol- lowed by Rim-Sin, sons of Kudur-Mabug, displaced the Amorites at Larsa, and brought the Nisin dynasty to a close. The dynasty of Babylon, usually known as the First Dynasty, began to rule shortly after the close of Gungunu ^s reign (MI p. 41). The kings of this dynasty, as mentioned above (Chapter II) were also Amorite. Not only is the nomenclature of this period full of Amorite names, but many bearing Semitic Babylonian names were devotees of Amorite deities, as is shown by the impressions of the seals on the tablets. This would imply that many of the Amorite names were very likely Babylonized, which is understandable, as in many instances it only involved a very slight change. This would indi- cate that the Amorites were much more numerous than the nomen- clature shows. But what is especially significant is the large number of the devotees of Amurru, El-Uru, Adad, Nergal and other Amorite gods, as indicated by the seals, not only from one site, but from all whence tablets have come, Babylon, Sippar, Larsa, etc. From the seal impressions on recently published texts coming from Larsa, ii would almost seem as if the chief deity of the people was 94 THE EMPIEE OF THE AMORITES. Uru or Amurru. Even Rim-Sin, the Elamite, has handed down a votive tablet in which he acknowledges doing obeisance to El-Uru the god of the Amorites, in dedicating a votive inscription to him (Yale Babylonian Collection, No. 7232). In short, the land was filled with Amorites. The name Ishki-Bal and others in the Sea-land dynasty may also prove to be Amorite ; but thereafter Amurru does not seem to have figured very prominently in the affairs of Babylonia, except as a field for gathering tribute. Doubtless, the brief Elamitic suze- rainty of the West, followed by that of Babylon, was responsible for the disorganization which ensued. IX EARLY BABYLONIANS IN AMURRU The records of Babylonian and Assyrian kings which show con- tact with Amurru are naturally important for the reconstruction of the history of that land. These show us that already in the earliest known period of Babylonian history the great rulers of that land were preying upon the Amorites. As is evident also from what has preceded and what follows, the people of Amurru, especially from the middle Mesopotamian district, also had their turn in such undertakings. Etana, the twelfth king of Kish, as referred to in the last chap- ter, is said to have subdued (ruled) all lands. This expression, which is found in a tablet written in the time of the Nisin dynasty, doubtless meant that the lands of the West were included. It seems reasonable, therefore, to look upon Etana as the first known ruler who came into contact with Amurru. The same is true as regards the two fragmentary tablets, dealing with events in the time of Shar-banda and Dumu-Zi, which refer to wars against Elam below, Halma above, and Tidnum in the west. Also the conflict of Grilgamesh and his companion Enkidu with Humbaba has been noted. Humbaba is perhaps the earliest Amorite known by name, except the legendary antediluvian rulers handed down by Berossus. Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech, informs us that he conquered the lands *'from the sea, the lower, the Tigris and Euphrates to the sea, the upper (i. e., the Mediterranean).'^ For years it has been known from late omen texts that Sargon, after several campaigns, subdued the land of the Amorites, and set up an image of himself on the Syrian coast. In an inscription recently published ( UMBS IV 1, 177 b), which gives legends from monuments seen in Nippur, the god, presumably Enlil, is credited with having given unto Sar- gon ' ' the upper land Mari, larmuti, and Ibla even unto the Cedar Forest and the Silver mountains." The city or kingdom of Mari was on the Euphrates (see Chapter X ) ; larmuti, as shown by the Amarna letters, was a seaport town on the Phoenician coast ; and (95) 96 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Ibla, mentioned by Naram-Sin and also by Gudea, was the district further north. The cedar forests, it would seem from the descrip- tion, were north of Ibla, and therefore likely refer to the cedars of the Amanus district, which Gudea mentions in his inscriptions. The silver mountains, it is thought, are in the Taurus range, the same referred to on the obelisk of Shalmaneser.^ In the omens of Sargon there is a passage frequently quoted which reads: ''the sea of the West he crossed," which has been interpreted as meaning the Mediterranean. But a chronicle more recently published by King proves that the eastern sea is meant. The passage reads: ''The sea in the East he crossed, and in the eleventh year the country of the West in its full extent his hand subdued" (Chron. II, p. 4). The above inscriptions taken from his monuments show the extent of the West land which he conquered. A clay tablet recently discovered at Amarna {VS XII, 193), the translation of which was published by Sayce {P8BA 1915, 227 ff.), contains a legend of Sargon 's successful invasion of a distant country separated by a barrier of trackless forests and mountains. Sayce holds that this was in the Hittite region in eastern Asia Minor. The tablet he thinks belonged to a Hittite resident of Amarna of the period to which the so-called Amarna tablets belong. In a date of Shargani-Sharri, we learn that ruler con- quered Amurru. It reads : "In the year in which Shargani-Sharri conquered Amurru in Basar. ' '^ Gudea on his statue as an architect informs us of his extensive building operations, and how he secured his materials from moun- tains in Amurru, Arabia, and the country north of Amurru. From Mount Amanus he brought cedars, and urkarinu wood. From Ursu in the mountain of Ibla, he brought zahalu, and asuhu wood, and plane trees. From the mountains Umanu in Menua, and Basalla (perhaps Mt. Bazara mentioned by Shargani-Sharri) in Amurru, he brought stones, out of which he made stelae. From ^ See Poebel, ibid. 224 f . Olmstead thinks the mines at Bulghar Maden are here referred to {AJSL 33, 311). 2 Cf . Thureau-Dangin RTC 124. This place has been identified with Mt. Bisuru, mentioned in Ashur-nasir-pal, III 9 if. and the modem Buzera near Circesium. If this is correct, it would indicate that in this period this part of the land was included in Amurru. IX. EAELY BABYLONIANS IN AMURRU. 97 the mountain Tidanu in Amurru, he brought marble; and from Kagalad, a mountain of Ki-Mash (Damascus), he brought copper. From the mountains of Meluhha, he brought usu wood ; and gold dust from the mountains of Hahu. From a mountain in Gubin, he secured huluppu wood ; from Madga asphalt, and from the moun- tain Barshib, nalua stone. From the lands of the lower country by the Persian Gulf to the upper country of the Mediterranean Sea, a^s well as other places, he transported materials for his building operations and statues. In the absence of any military records of Gudea, we know only what the contributions of these lands were in building materials. Dungi in his year dates commemorates the devastation of differ- ent cities in the west, as Humurti (probably Gomorrah), Ki-Mash (Damascus), etc. Unfortunately, many of the cities which Dungi conquered cannot be identified. Together with the other rulers of the dynasty who followed, namely, Amar-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi- Sin, he used the title ''king of the four quarters of the world,'* which it is understood included Amurru. On the seal impression bearing Ibi-Sin's name found on a Cappadocian tablet, see Chapter XIII. Elam held the suzerainty of Amurru for a time. Kudur-Mabug, the father of Warad-Sin and Rim- Sin, used the title Ad-da ^''''Mar- tu, ''Suzerain of Amurru." That Elam held sway in Palestine is confirmed by the tradition handed down in the fourteenth Chap- ter of Genesis, which informs us that in the days of Amraphel, Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagamar), king of Elam, invaded Palestine. It would seem that Elam had gained ascendancy in this region about the time it did over Larsa in Babylonia when following a succession of short reigns the sons of Kudur-Mabug, Warad-Sin and Eim-Sin, were placed on the throne of Larsa. Hammurabi in conquering Elam in his thirty-first year, and Mari in his thirty-fifth year, acquired the title to Amurru (see Chapter X). In a stele found at Diarbekr in Southern Armenia {LIH I QQ) he calls himself "King of Amurru." Whether at this time Amurru included this part of the Near East cannot at present be determined. Hammurabi's son and successor, Samsu-iluna, in the date for- mula for his thirty-sixth year, refers to the great mountains of 98 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Amurru {CT 2, 27 : 18). Only one other ruler of the same dynasty, Ammi-ditana, the great-grandson of Hammurabi, refers to the land in his title ''king da-ga-mu of the land Amurru" {LIR I 100: 6), which term is not understood. In the Cassite period, which fol- lowed, contact with Amurru is unknown, except the bringing back from Hani of the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum. Contact on the part of the kings of Babylonia with Amurru seems to synchronize with highly prosperous reigns. When inva- sions or conquests of Amurru, Elam and Subartu took place, it was usually at a time when Babylonia was strong and vigorous. These were periods when art flourished, and the scribe was much in evi- dence. Monumental records or victory steles seemed to be the order. When all the lands, or the lands from the lower sea to the upper, were conquered, including Elam, the ruler used the title, ''king of the four quarters of the world." The title enjoyed by kings in reigns immediately preceding or following such, is fre- quently "king of Sumer and Akkad," which embraced simply the northern and southern part of Babylonia. Between these periods which offer evidence of high water marks of what were regarded as prosperous times, there are dark periods when the civilization was apparently at a low ebb. Even temple records in these periods do not seem to have been kept; in fact, evidences that there were scribes in some of these eras are almost completely wanting, though naturally this could scarcely have been the case. Prior to the time of Lugal-zaggisi, and the period following the reign of Shargani-Sharri, there are great gaps in the history. Following the overthrow of the Ur Dynasty, when Amo- rites began to reign in different centres, there was apparently a chaotic state of affairs for nearly a century, as the almost complete absence of records shows. In the first half of the Cassite rule, as far as is known at present, there was again such a lull. The same is true during the greater portion of the period when the Assyrians were dominant. As a rule the monuments of Babylonia throw no light on the ques- tion as to what was the cause of the low tide of civilization in these periods. The conqueror did not record what led to the over- throw of the native dynasty. He was not in a position to flaunt before the conquered people the fact that he had subjugated them. IX. EARLY BABYLONIANS IN AMUREU. 99 The presence of foreigners upon the thrones must explain for us what happened. The kings who sat on the thrones being Amorites, Elamites, Gutians, Cassites, etc., we can only infer that the tables had been turned for the time being upon the Babylonians. We are often dependent, for what we know of them, upon the effort of the later scribe who handed down to us dynastic lists ; but many of these are unfortunately so fragmentary, especially for the early periods, that we are still in the dark even as to the length of many of these eras of depression. An occasional historical reference as to what occurred may be found in later periods, as for example, we are informed in a chronicle that Agum-kakrime brought back to Babylon from Hani the cult-images of Marduk and Sarpanitum, and installed them in their shrines ; or Ashurbanipal, in recording his defeat of Elam, celebrates his return of the statue of Nana to her shrine in Erech, which he informs us was carried off to Elam by Kudur-Nahundi, 1635 years earlier, but additional knowledge of the invasions is wanting. If we were able to delve among the records of the powers whose representatives sat upon the throne of Babylonia, perhaps we would know more about the state of affairs that led to the over- throw of the rule. The resurrection of Elam's royal records, those of Amurru, Guti, Shubartu, etc., will enable us to fill up some of the gaps in the early history of Babylonia. They, doubtless, will also show how these countries held sway over Babylonia at times of which at present we have no intimation whatever. A country like Amurru, which was overrun and plundered many times throughout the millenniums of its history, certainly, especially in the early period, was strong enough to strike back. The divination texts would alone be sufficient to show that the fear and dread of this being done were ever before the peoples of Babylonia. It is only necessary to examine these texts to ascertain how deeply seated was this fear. Since the Amorites were quiescent after 2000 B. C, we must conclude that the divination formulae portending trouble from this quarter came from an earlier period. Moreover from the evidence we already possess, there can be no question but that trouble from the West occurred repeatedly ; and it is certainly rea- sonable to infer that when fuller dynastic records have been recovered this fact will become more and more evident. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU It has been customary to look upon the political life of Amurru, especially of the early period, as more or less devoid of cohesion or unity. The fact is, Amurru is generally regarded as made up of petty princedoms of semi-enlightened people, or tribes of a semi- barbarous character. This conception has been favorable for the development of the pan-Babylonists ' theories, and for the view that all Semites are Arabs ; but this is erroneous, for the early period as well as the late, and must be abandoned. The country embraced such peoples who had a low order of culture, especially in certain regions, as for example Palestine, which, with its varied geograph- ical character and being more or less isolated, was a home of neo- lithic man as well as a harbor for representatives of many nations. Nevertheless there are abundant reasons for believing that even this region had its large quota of civilized people ; and as regards the country as a whole, it will be shown as we proceed that it enjoyed, politically and otherwise, a civilization comparable to that of its neighbors. Whenever light is thrown upon the political situation in the post- Amorite period (i. e. after 2000 B. C.) by contemporaneous records, we learn of kingdoms of a greater or less extent. The inscriptions of Thutmose III (1501-1447 B. C.) furnish us with the earliest knowledge of political affairs in Amurru in this post-Amorite period. At this time, the king of Kadesh is either the head of an alliance of Amorites which included Palestine, or he is suzerain over this region (see Chapter XIV). In the Amarna period, Abdi- Ashirta, who was recognized by Egypt as an overlord of the Leba- non Amorites, and Aziru his son, created with the assistance of the Hittites an Amorite kingdom (see Chapter XII). We have knowl- edge also of Og and Sihon, kings of the East Jordan Amorites. A few centuries later the Hebrews under Saul aspired to found a kingdom; which under David and Solomon embraced, with the (100) X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 101 exception of Phoenicia and the Lebanon coastal cities, the territory reaching unto the upper Euphrates. There was also an Aramaean kingdom with Damascus as its capital. In the Assyrian period we know of great alliances or coalitions. In the Mesopotamian region, other kingdoms are known. In short, whenever the veil is lifted and we obtain a glimpse of political affairs, we learn of the existence of kingdoms, small and large, or of aspirations to found such kingdoms. The greatest political ascendancy in Western Amurru that is known in post-Amorite times was that of Jerusalem before the kingdom was divided and fell a prey to Assyria and later to Baby- lonia. Without the indigenous record that we have in the Old Tes- tament, we should know absolutely nothing of the kingdom of David and Solomon. Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, at the time when the Jews founded their kingdom, were comparatively weak,^ and were absorbed with their own problems at home, which permitted the Hebrews to develop their kingdom. There were many such periods in the history of Babylonia, especially in the earlier millen- niums, when powerful kings could have ruled the length and breadth of Amurru; and of whom we shall learn as little in the annals of Babylonia, even when all have been brought to light, as we have in later times of Solomon and David. Early Egypt also had its periods of decline, for which it is not at all improbable that some mighty Amorite rulers were responsible. In short, a great and powerful hegemony in Amurru could have existed in the very periods on which contemporary records in Egypt and Babylonia are silent, or in which no annals were produced ; and it is only by the help of isolated statements, perhaps of a later period, or by the study of the personal names, that it can be ascertained that the cause of the decline was due to the encroachments of some power- ful neighbor. It would be reasonable to infer, having alone the knowledge of these kingdoms, alliances, and coalitions, that ' Breasted, however, thinks, on the basis of 1 Kgs. 9 : 16, that Solomon was evidently an Egyptian vassal, who possibly received in marriage a daughter of the Pharaoh, and whose territory his Egyptian suzerain extended by the gift of Gezer, which the Canaanites had not conquered, but which he cap- tured, burned and presented to Solomon. HE p. 529. 102 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Amurru, which land was so favorable for an advanced civilization, prior to the time that it succumbed to Elam and Babylon, played an important role among its neighbors. But there is no need to rely upon inferences for this view, since there is proof that it is fact. The land Amurru like every other kingdom had a centre from which it was governed. In searching for this imperial city it seems that certain considerations must be kept in mind. In the first place it would seem reasonable to look for a city that bore the same name as the kingdom, having in mind such lands as Ashur, Mash, Akkad, Tilla, Babylon, etc. It would appear that the city should have existed at a very early era to account for the name Martu=Amurru being used for the land in the early periods. The city doubtless occupied a position rather centrally located to have maintained its dominance over this wide area, and also to have influenced Baby- lonia so extensively. Such a city it would seem, having conquered all the surrounding kingdoms, and occupied such a prominent position, must have practically passed out of existence, for little is known about it in the late centuries. The city probably was the home of the god whose name was written Mar, Mer, Amar, Uru, El-Ur (Aloros), etc., and who figured so prominently in the early nomenclature of the Babylonians. With the loss of its prestige in the latter part of the third millennium B. C, Amorite influence upon Babylonia practically ceased; the city's religion must have waned, for subsequent to the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, Amorite names compounded with Mer, Mar, Amurru or Uru are rare in comparison to earlier periods ; in fact some of the writings of the name totally disappear in personal names, although they are preserved in the late period in the syllabaries. The writer has shown that Amurru, which is written in Aramaic Uru pIN), is identical with the name of Abraham's home, Ur of the Chaldees, i. e. Ur pIX) .- Its position in history, like that of the kingdom of Amurru, was practically lost sight of. So little was known of the city that the Jews in Babylon in Talmudic ^ See Amurru 167 ff. Siace the name Amurru or Uru was regarded the same as Ur, the writer proposed the identification of a place near Sippar as the site of the city ; this view is now abandoned. X. UR THE- CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 103 times and some later Arabian writers regarded Warka (or Erech, Gen. 10: 10) as the city. It now seems highly probable to the writer that the centre sought for as the imperial city, or Amurru, is the place known as Ur of the Chaldees. Recently Olmstead revived an identification which he credits Henry Rawlinson as having made from a topographical point of view, namely that of the city Amurru with Marathus, which appears on the sea coast opposite Arvad.^ Olmstead, regarding this the capital, sees the name also in the river Marathias of Eusta- thias, ad Dionys. 914, and in the modern 'Amrit {JA08 38 249). In the Amarna Letters the kingdom formed by Abdi-Ashirta in this region is called Amurru. The Boghaz-koi archival tablets, as well as the Egyptian inscriptions of this period, also use the old name of the empire. Probably the name Marathias and *Amrit have come down from this period. The ' ' city of Amor ' ' mentioned by Ramses III (1198-1167) may be this city. In the Assyrian period Amurru seems to have been confined to this district ; and it is per- fectly natural to look for the old capital in this region; in fact, the present writer has heretofore inclined toward this view. More recent investigations, however, seem to point elsewhere as the region of the old capital which gave the land its name, and espe- cially since we have many references to the Mediterranean cities in the early inscriptions of Babylonia and Egypt (see Chapters IX and XIV), but not the slightest evidence of the city in question in the period when the empire existed, namely, in the third and fourth millenniums B. C. Such an argument is always precarious, but nevertheless until evidence is found it appears to the writer that it is reasonable to look elsewhere, in the light of other facts, for the ancient and important city which was powerful enough to rule the land from the Mediterranean to Babylonia. The earliest kingdom in the Mesopotamian region of which at present we have knowledge is that of Mari or Meri, along the Euphrates. The city played an important role in the early history of Babylonia, and very probably of the entire North Semitic world. ^ Rawlinson says : "In the Khorsabad Inscription, for Akarra or Acre is often substituted Maratha which is of course Ma/oa^os of Strabo 'ttoAis 6.pxaia ^otvUoiv' Lib. 16, 518." {JRAS OS 12, 430 n. 1.) 104: THE EMPIEE OF THE AMORITES. The earliest known reference to the city is on a votive statuette in the British Museum written in archaic script, which reads as follows :''... -um-Shamash, king of Mari, great patesi of Enlil, ... to Shamash presented as a gift" (OT 5, 2). The title patesi- gal '^Enlil shows that this early king of Mari was suzerain over at least part of Babylonia. It seems to the writer that this scarcely noticed text is of the greatest importance in that it is the earliest known inscription of an Amorite, and refers unquestionably to one of those early periods when Amurru was the dominant power in Babylonia. The style of the sculpture, which is archaic, points to the earliest age, probably as early as the statue found by Banks at Bismaya (King 8 A 97). The character of the writing also points to a very early age. The writer finds no reference to its pro- venance, but a photograph of the statuette has been published (iM. p. 102). Eannatum, an early patesi of Lagash, informs us that in his day Mari was allied with Kish and Kesh (Opis) against him {VB I 22, VI: 22). The coalition of these cities with Mari is interesting in this connection because they are Semitic centres. Eannatum claims to have administered a crushing defeat to the confederacy led by Zuzu of Kesh, at the Antasurra of Ningirsu, and to have pursued them to their own city. He does not mention, however, that he conquered Mari. Sargon, king of the Kish-Akkad dynasty, refers to the capture of Mari. He informs us that some deity whose name is missing, probably Enlil, ''gave unto him the upper land, Mari, larmuti and Ibla as far as the cedar forest and the silver mountains" {UMB8 IV 7, 179 f . ) . In an oracle of Ishbi-Urra, as noted in Chapter VIII, the founder of the Nisin Dynasty, that king is twice called ''the man of Mari. ' ' We have also seen that not only the Nisin rulers bear Amorite names, but those of the contemporaneous dynasties, namely Larsa and Babylon ; which, considered in connection with the fact that the nomenclature at this time is filled with Amorite names, show great influence from this quarter (see Chapter VTII). To this period very probably belongs a votive tablet, noAv in the Louvre, which had been inscribed by a king whose name has also unfortunately been injured. It reads as follows : "Zi-i[m-. . .] son of Ja-ah- . . . , king of Mari, and the country . . . , who built X. UR THE CAPITAL OP AMURRU. 105 the temple of . . ., who from . . . brought. . ., on the bank of the 'EulphrRtes], the hit su-ri-h[i] . ., in Tirq[a], the beloved of the god . . ." (See Herzfeld RA 11 134 ff.). The script, which is that of the Ur Dynasty or earlier, and the knowledge we possess of Mari and the collapse of its political position (see below), make it highly probable that it belongs to a period not later than the middle of the third millennium B. C. Moreover, we learn from the inscription the fragmentary name of a Mari king, Zim-. . . and that of his father, also only partially preserved, namely Jah-. . ., who, it is reasonable to assume was also a ruler. This being true, we know the fragmentary names of three kings of Mari, the earliest being . . . -um-Shamash. Besides these Amo- rite kings, we know of Humbaba who was very probably a king in the Lebanon district in the time of Gilgamesh (see Chapter VIII), and an early patesi of Ki-Mash (very probably Damascus), named Hunnini. To these should be added the names of the four local Amorite kings mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis; but these ruled about the time the empire was dissolved, or even later. They were local city-rulers of Western Amurru. In the latter part of the third millennium Elam entered the Western arena, and with the help of its vassals, conquered the Amorite world. The fourteenth chapter of Genesis informs us how in the Hammurabi (Amraphel) era, Elam had invaded the Amorite territory on the west side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. It is not improbable that this is the time the hegemony of Mari was fingilly broken up, when the king of Elam became Adda Martu "Suzerain of Amurru" (VB 210, 6:4). It is not unlikely that the fragmentary date for Hammurabi's tenth year refers to this invasion, for in it the population of Malgu is mentioned, probably as having been carried away. A few years after Ham- murabi had thrown off the yoke of Elam in his thirty-fifth year, he destroyed Mari and Malgu. The date reads : ' ' The year in which Hammurabi after having destroyed the walls of Mari and Malgu, at the command of Anu and Enlil," etc. As this event followed closely upon his contest for supremacy with Elam, it would seem that probably Mari had attempted to regain its former status. Mari and Malgu doubtless required more than ordinary efforts on the part of Hammurabi, because of which their over- 106 THE EMPIBE OF THE AMORITES. throw was celebrated in the date formula. In his Code the law- giver speaks of himself as the one who subdued the settlements along the Euphrates, 'Hhe warrior of Dagan, his creator, who pro- tected the people of Mari and Tutul/' The Code probably refers to a time subsequent to the destruction of the city's walls. Mari thereafter ceased to be an important political power in Western Asia. Only two references in the Babylonian inscriptions to Mari sub- sequent to the ascendancy of Babylon are known to the writer. In a relief of the later period, Shamash-resh-usur calls himself gov- ernor of Suhi and Mari (Weissbach Miscln. 9 f.) ; and the city is mentioned in a document as being in proximity to Suhi {CT 4, 2r: 20). In brief, the city Mari ceased to be a factor in the politi- cal affairs of Western Asia after the time of Hammurabi. Mari must be recognized as the city Mar of the early inscrip- tions. The goddess whose name is written ideographically Nin- Mar^\ to whom Dungi erected or restored a temple in Girsu, is the ha' alat of Mar. From this centre, namely Mari or Mar, there went forth the gods named Shar-Urra and Mesh-Lam-Ta-e, two names of Ne-Uru- Gal (^Nergal) the god of Cutha. The equation Mar^'^^Nin-IB identifies Urta with the city. The absolute identification of Mar with Mar-tw=Amurru=Uru and the other forms of this name, see the previous chapter, gives us every reason for identifying the city Mari as the centre we are looking for, which was powerful enough to weld together the Semitic peoples of this region into a great nation and to give it the name Amurru; this it retained for millenniums, even subse- quent to the time the hegemony was destroyed. Yet, it was in all probability the home of the Chaldean antediluvian mythological kings at the head of which stands El-'Ur (Aloros), and who was fol- lowed by five other kings whose names also contain the city-god's name, Alap-'Ur (Alaparos), Amel-'Ur (Amillaros), Megal-'Ur (Megaloros), Ebed-'Ur, the brother (Euedorachos), and perhaps 'Ar-data (Ardates) (see Chapter IX). This also was the ancestral home of Ishbi-Urra and Imitti-Urra of the Nisin Dynasty; and moreover it is highly probable that it was the home of Abraham. Taking into account all that is known from the inscriptions, and X. UB THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. lOT the conditions that we could propose in the identification of the imperial centre, no city in Amurru fulfills the conditions as does Mari or Merra on the Euphrates. Further St. Stephen says Ur of the Chaldees was in Mesopotamia (Acts 7: 2, 4). In this connection the question arises, when did Merra or Ur establish the hegemony which gave its name to the entire land; and when was it dissolved? Naturally it was established long before the time of Sargon, but whether as early as the time of Etana, Shar-banda or Gilgamesh, when Humbaba lived, or not, cannot be surmised. It is reasonable to infer perhaps that the empire was established prior to the time when . . . um-Shamash, king of Mari, ruled Babylonia. Sargon in turn humiliated Mari. He captured the city and invaded the region beyond, as far as Ibla (see above). Following the Kish and Erech Dynasties, Guti ruled Babylonia; but Guti in turn was overthrown by Erech. Another dark period followed, the length of which cannot be deter- mined at present.* The status of Mari in the West during the time of the Ur Dynasty, which followed, is not known, but the fact that these conquerors made no mention of the city is proof that its fortified position was too strong for them; yet they carried on their practice of looting and gathering tribute from the king- doms beyond During the Ur Dynasty, Mari certainly did not have a dominant position, for the Ur Dynasty kings assumed the title ''king of the four regions," which included Amurru. But the time came when not only Ur's control of Amurru was lost, but Mari actually overthrew the dynasty and ruled the land, for ' ' Ish- bi-Urra a man from Mari" was placed upon the Nisin throne. Although we have no way of determining the origin of Naplanum who took the throne of Larsa, his name and those of his dynasty are Amorite. Moreover it is to be noted that the Larsa and Nisin * The writer is one of those who have clung to a greater antiquity for Sargon than is now generally accepted. The tablets published by Scheil (Comptes BendiirS 1911 6061) and Poebel (UMBS V) have restored some of the dynasties between Sargon and the Ur Dynasty, and he feels that more will become known as investigations proceed. It will probably not be pos- sible to return to the former early date, but the present indications are that a much greater antiquity than now acceded, will have to be granted. 108 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Dynasties were established at or near the same time (see Chapter IX). One of those dark periods in the history of Sumer and Akkad, which has left ns few or no inscriptions, follows ; although the length of the reigns would not imply disintegration in this instance, but perhaps rather foreign control, as mentioned above. Amorites a little later established a dynasty at Babylon ; and as far as is known they ruled the whole land. As time passed the Amorite rulers became Babylonized. The Amorite dynasty at Larsa was overthrown by the Elamites, to whom also Babylon became subject. Elam invaded Amurru. Subsequently Hammu- rabi drove the Elamites out of the land, and a few years later conquered Mari, destroyed its walls, and also those of other strong- holds along the Euphrates ; when the imperial history of Mari or Amurru was closed. It was said in Amurru (p. 103), concerning the name Uri for the country Akkad, or northern Babylonia, that it is not improbable that in some period, when the peoples of Amurru dominated Akkad, the name of the broad Amorite land Uri {=Amurru) was geographically extended to include it. The more recent investi- gations confirm this idea, especially since we know that the Amo- rites conquered Babylonia several times. If this is not correct, we can only assume that two countries, adjacent to each other, and inhabited by Semitic peoples who were closely related, had the same name, which in both instances was written with the ideogram BUR-BUR, and yet the names had nothing in common. Since the Western Semites at times invaded Babylonia, and sat on the thrones of the land, this scarcely seems as reasonable as the view that the name was given to Akkad in some early period when the peoples from Uri dominated it. Recently the writer proposed the identification of the city whose name is written Ma-ri^"^ and Mar''' with Merra ' ' a fortified place, a walled city," which was mentioned in his Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax of the first century B. C. (see MI 4 f.) Accord- ing to Isidore there was fifteen schoeni between the Aburas (Habur) and Merra, and twenty- two between Merra and Anatho.^ "" From the Aburas, Isidore informs us, it was four schoeni to Asich, six to Dura Nicanoris, five to Merra, a fortified place, a walled village, five to X. UR THE CAPITAL OF AMURRU. 109 The latter city, as is understood (see below), was by 'Ana on an island in the Euphrates. Merra therefore should be less than half the distance from the Habur to ^Ana. The ruins of Irzi situated on a bluff or headland of a low range of rocky hills reaching the river on its north bank, although about midway between the Habur and ^Ana, have been considered by Peters,^ Schoff,'^ and others, to represent Merra. These pictur- esque ruins, which can be seen from a great distance, have been mentioned by all travellers who have noted the different sites on either side of the Euphrates. Cernik, in his Studien Expedition 1872-3, gives the name El Bans to the city. Balbi says the ruins in 1579 occupied a city larger in extent than Cairo, and appeared to be the massive walls and lofty towers of a great city. This led RennelP to identify Corsote mentioned by Xenophon (see below) with the site which he called Erzi or Irsah. Ainsworth comment- ing on Balbi 's description thinks he mistook *Hhe jagged and broken masses of gypsum for the fragments of an endless city" (Euphrates Expedition I 389). Also Miss Gertrude L. Bell, who examined the ruins, says she did not find bastioned walls, as she expected, but a number of isolated tower-tombs, round the edge of the bluff and over the whole extent of the high rocky plateau. She saw no traces of houses, nor means of obtaining water ; she thinks it was the necropolis of a near-by town, and dates from the first or second century of the Christian era.® Whether beneath the tombs seen by Miss Bell belonging to recent centuries, ruins of an ancient walled city will be found if excavations are conducted, remains to be seen. Olmstead seems to think that Isidore located Merra on the Euphrates at the town ' Isharah as exactly as one can locate a city Giddan, seven to Belesi Biblada, six to an island, four to Anatho, two to Thilabus, twelve to Izan, and sixteen to Aipolis or Hit. * Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates I 311 ff. ' Parthian Stations hy Isidore of Gharax p. 24. ® Illustrations of the Retreat of the Ten Thousand p. 103. ^ Amurath to Amurath 83 ff. Since Ainsworth ihid. p. 387 says the cliffs of Irzi were also called Al Wnrdi by the Arabs, the name of the city further up the stream, it may be possible that Irzi was the necropolis of that city. 110 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. on the hour basis (AJT p. 284) ; but 'Isharah is too far up the stream. A little above Irzi on the Euphrates is the site of an ancient city which at present is called Werdi (also Wurdi). This site is less than half way between the Habur and 'Ana, and seems to be nearer to the position given for Merra, by Isidore, than Irzi ; it was fifteen hours from the Habur and twenty- two to ^ Ana. Werdi also is thought to be the Corsote of Xenophon, who referred to it as a large deserted city, which was entirely surrounded by the Masca, and where Cyrus passed three days on his march against Artax- erxes his brother {Anabasis I 5, 9). No other ancient writer is known to have referred to the city named Corsote. Doubtless in Xenophon 's time the ruins of the ancient city were still in evidence. Ainsworth, however, says he saw no remains of a city. The posi- tion of the city naturally makes it possible to understand this ; the Masca mentioned by Xenophon is understood to be the loop canal which encloses the bend of the river on which Werdi stood. This canal is now called Werdiyeh.^^ Since Mar and Mer frequently interchange with We-ir, it is reasonable to suggest that Werdi per- haps is from Werti, and is to be identified with Martu. If the site actually represents the ancient city Merra or Ur, this wiU appear most reasonable. Moreover, the remark previously made several times again seems appropriate here, the spade of the exca- vator can easily determine whether Werdi represents the city in question. ^'^ Bell Amuraih to Amurath p. 82. XI OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS The kingdom of Hana embraced a district of the middle Euphra- tes, including the country in the region of the mouth of the Habur above Merra. The discovery of a few inscriptions in this district fortunately throws considerable light upon the character of the civilization. One of the chief towns, perhaps at one time the capi- tal of Hana, was Tirqa ; with which place four of the few inscrip- tions can be definitely identified. The site of the city is supposed to lie near Tell ^Isharah, where several of the tablets were found, a town situated between Ed-Der (or Der Ez-Z6r) and Salihiya. This identification seems corroborated by the discovery also at that site of a votive inscription of Shamshi-Adad, in which he records the restoration of a temple in that city (see below). The earliest reference to the city Tirqa is in the inscription of Zi-i [m . . . ] king of Mari, referred to in the previous chapter, who restored the Mt su-ri-h[i] in that city. The inscription cannot be definitely dated, but the script and other considerations point to the middle of the third millennium B. C, when Mari was still prob- ably the imperial city of Amurru. The inscription of Shamshi-Adad referred to above reads: ' ' Shamshi-Adad, king of the universe, the ruler of Enlil, the wor- shipper of Dagan, the patesi of Ashur, the builder of Ekisigga, the temple of his assistance, the temple of Dagan in Tirqa ".^ In this inscription Shamshi-Adad calls himself ''the priest-king of the god Ashur, ' ' which means he was the king of Assyria ; ' * ruler of Enlil," which implies he was the suzerain over Babylon; and ''the worshipper of Dagan," by which he regarded himself the patron of Tirqa 's deity. Doubtless he had conquered the city and district, and by his ' ' pious deeds ' ' attempted to placate the inhabi- tants. There was an Assyrian king named Shamshi-Adad who lived 1 Condamin ZA 21, 247 ff. (Ill) 112 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. in the time of Hammurabi ; another bearing the same name ruled about 1850 B. C, and others about 1600 B. C. and in the ninth century. Shamshi-Adad III, who ruled about 1600 B. C, used the same title ''king of the universe" {sar kissati), and informs us that he was solicitous for the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates {KTA 2: 1 if.). It would seem reasonable to regard him as the one who rebuilt the temple in Tirqa referred to in the above mentioned inscription. Besides this votive inscription, three contracts have been dis- covered. The first is a deed of gift which was granted by Isharlim or Isarlim (which name is identified by some with 'Israel'), who was king of Hana, as shown by the impression of the royal seal on the tablet. The deed conveys a house in Al-eshshum, a part of the city Tirqa, which was the property of the gods, Shamash, Dagan, and Itur-Mer, and of the king. These names occur in the oath formula {LC 237). The date reads "In the year when Ishar- lim, the king, built the great gate of the palace in the city of Kash- dah." The second is a deed of gift of several plots of land in the towns Ja'mu-Dagan and Tirqa, to his servant Pagirum, by Ammi-bail, the son of Shunu '-rammu, king of the same district {V8 7, 204). The oath formula includes the names of the same deities, Shamash, Dagan and Itur-Mer, and that of the king Ammi-bail, in whose reign the document is dated; i. e., "in the year when Ammi-bail, the king, ascended the throne in his father's house." The third tablet is also a deed of land, in Tirqa, which is dated "in the year when Kashtiliashu established righteousness" {LG 238). The oath formula is similar to that of the other two deeds. Whether the Cassite king bearing this name is the one who lived in the eighteenth century, or the one in the thirteenth, or even another, it is impossible to say. Another inscription from this part of the country is a marriage contract. Its exact provenance is unknown, but it certainly came from the same region. It is dated "in the year when Hanmiu- rabih, the king, opened the canal Habur-ibal-Bugash from the city Dur-Isharlim to the city Dur-Igitlim. " This would seem to show that a canal passed from Dur-Isharlim on the Habur to Dur-Igit- lim. Since Dur-Isharlim apparently was a royal palace, Dur- XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 113 Igitlim may also have been the castle of Igitlim, another ruler of Hana. These two names which have been so frequently quoted, were incorrectly read Zakku-Isharlim and Zakku-Igitlim (Johns P8BA 1907, 177 fe.). The original, which is in Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan ^s library, clearly reads Dur-Isharlim and Dur-Igitlim. Johns identified the king with the Babylonian law-giver; but besides the date of the tablet not being a known date of the ruler, which fact he recognized, there are other reasons for believing the tablet was written in the Cassite period, unless it is assumed that the Cassites, prior to Hammurabi's time, had already influenced Mesopotamia in an extensive manner. Besides the name of the canal, which is compounded with that of the Cassite god Bugash, one of the four personal names mentioned in the tablet, Kikhinu,^ shows Mitannian influence. The other three names of the contract, Wi-it-ti-^Da-gan, Pa-gi-rum, and A-ha-ia, are West-Semitic. Fur- ther, the seal impression on the tablet, which has not as yet been published, is, as far as is known to the writer, peculiar to the Cas- site period.^ These facts point either to the conclusion that the Cassites conquered this region prior to Hammurabi's time, and that this great ruler recognized their deity in naming the canal he dug, which he did not do in any inscriptions known from Baby- lonia, and that he employed different date formulae outside of Babylonia ; or else the tablet was written in the reign of another and later ruler. The orthography Hammurabih^ has no bearing on the question, ^ With the name Ki-ik-ki-nu we can compare Ki-ki-Teswp, Ki-ik-Tesup {^IM), Ki-ik-ia, Ki-ik-ku-li and fKi-ik-ki-ia-en-ni (see Clay PN). ® The text will be republished in Part IV of Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. * It seems unfortunate that there should be so much confusion introduced into the spelling of the Babylonian lawgiver's name, for besides Hammu- rabi there have been introduced Hammurabifp, Hammurapi, Hammurawi, and Hammu-rawiJj,. In changing the pronunciation, scholars have been trying to accommodate themselves to four facts: the Assyrian translation of the name kimta rapastum, offered by a late scribe; to Amraphel, in Genesis ; the form Am-mu-ra^pi, in an Assyrian letter j and Ha-am-mu-ra- hi-iJp in the Hana marriage contract. To these cases should be added the occurrence of the name written '^Am-mu-ra-pi (YBC 4362), Am-mu-ra-bi 114 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMOEITES. for the signs ih and i' were nsed interchangeably both in the Ham- murabi and in the Cassite period.^ There is a name in the Amarna letters El-ra-hi-ih (also written I-li-ra-[bi-i1i] ) which doubtless represents the same element rahi' from the root meaning '*to be great. ' ' Besides these four legal documents and the votive inscriptions of Zim . . ., and that of Shamshi-Adad, which throw most wel- (YBC 6270), and Ha-am-mu-um-ra-pi (YBC 6496, 6508) on First Dynasty records, which have been discovered by Dr. Grice of the Yale Babylonian Seminary. That this foreign name should be written occasionally with rapi instead of rahi, and especially in Assyria, where the harder pronunciation of the labial is frequently found, is not surprising. There is some justification for the reading rapi from NO"! ' ' to heal, ' ' advanced by Prince, cf , Nahu- ra-pa-' {BE 10:57); but the element can scarcely be the Arabic rafi' , ''high" (Thureau-Dangin OLZ 1908 93), nor with Hommel from the Arabic roots rabaha, rabagha, etc. {OLZ 1907 235 f.). Evidence that these roots were used in Arabic or Amorite names is necessary to make the suggestions convincing; and further, such a meaning as ''Amm is wide" or ''the family is broad" is without parallel for personal names. The assumption of Luckenbill, who makes the root 111") "to be airy, roomy, wide," is still less convincing {JAOS 37, 252). Chiera's Amorite list, as well as the Yale Gilgamesh tablet, show that the signs pi, hi, mi, and hu, mu, etc., represent similar Amorite sounds, but the statement that in Old Babylonian the word for "son" is not aplu but maru, and that names read abil, "son," must be changed to awil, "man" {UMBS XI 1, 37 f.), which LuckenbiU accepts {JAOS 37, 252), is difficult to understand. Cf. ah-lim 31:54, Ah-lu-tvm 28:19, etc., of the Code; a-lil 17:1, a-li-il 210:10, etc., TAB 5, and cf. A-hil{TUR)-^a'mas, etc. (Ranke PN). Moreover, evidence of the use of this root tl^*^ in personal names is wanting ; and besides the element would appear rah, instead of rawi or rawih. While rawi, rawih, or rafi are not found in Amorite names, rabi from the root "to be great," is very common. This element is even found in the Amorite names of Cappadocia. It seems comparatively easy to understand how the Assyrian scribe, mistaking the element Amm of an earlier age for the word meaning "family," translated rdbi with rapastum. In short, this royal scribe of Ashurbanipal's library was sufficiently educated to know at least the pronunciation of the name, which he wrote ra-hi; and hi in the Assyrian period cannot be read wi or pi. The same is true of the XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 115 come light upon the civilization of the Hana district, especially in the early part of the second millennium B. C, there should be men- tioned also another document of the early period which has been published by Pinches (CT 4, 1), concerning a certain Sin-iqisham, the sdhir of Suhi, who dwelt in Halis of Suhi. It would appear from this document that Suhi bordered on Mari. Shamash-resh- usur of a later period (see below), was shaknu of Suhi and Mari. Suhi has been placed above Mari near the mouth of the Habur '{HB p. 260, n), and it has been localized below, near 'Ana, although it is recognized as a very indefinite place (Olmstead JAOS 38 p. 241). If Anat, Hanat, and Anatho are different forms of the same city^s name (see below), it would seem that Suhi must have been below Mari. These documents show that the Babylonian language, with the usual Sumerian formulae, was used for the legal documents ; yet the terminology was peculiar to the district. Doubtless, back of the documents is a different code of laws. For example, in the case of any infraction of the rights bestowed by the king, there was to be a fine of ten manehs of silver, and in addition the guilty party was to have his head tarred with hot tar. The nomenclature of these few contracts found in Hana is espe- cially rich in important characteristics of the Amorite civilization. They contain an unusually large number of Amorite names. Among them are many West Semitic verbal forms, like Ja-as-ma-'- ^Da-gan, Ja-ri-ih-^Adad, etc. Of special importance is the fre- quent occurrence of the god Dagan in the names, about a dozen of which are compounded with that of the deity ; and besides, several royal scribe who made a copy of the Code of Hammurabi for the library {CT 13:47). And surely the chronicler of early kings was sufficiently intelligent to know this name. The same is true of the royal scribe of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, when he referred to Hammurabi as living 700 years prior to Burna-Buriash. Even though the foreign name of this ruler was iq a few instances written differently, these facts should be suffi- cient to prompt us to hold to the pronunciation these scribes deemed correct, namely, Hammurabi. ^ Cf. Ranke BE VI 1, Sign No. 198. Cf. also Ba-ah-lu-U with Ba-'-lu-ti, Ei-sa-ah-hu-ut with Ei-sa-'-hu-ut, etc. (Clay PN) j and ma-ah-du-U 191: 8 with ma-'-du-ti 3 : 10, etc., Amama letters. 116 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. individuals bear the title * Spriest of Dagan/* On the seal of Isharlim, king of Hana, he calls himself 'Hhe beloved of Shamash and Dagan." In these few tablets several names contain that of 'Ammu, as Jaknn-Ammu, Bina-Ammi, Ammi-bail the king, Jasdi- Hammu, Zimri-Hammn, and perhaps AbUama his son. Two wit- nesses, Guri and Igitlim, and a man named Zimri-Hanata are designated as akil of the god Amurru, which title was so commonly used by the Amorites in Babylonia in the time of the First Dynasty. In this connection should be mentioned again the bringing back of the images of Marduk and Sarpanitum from Hani by the Cas- site king Agum-kakrime, and their reinstallation in Esagila at Babylon. It has been suggested that they had been carried off during the Hittite invasion in the time of Samsu-ditana (HB p. 210) ; but if Hani and the kingdom Hana are to be regarded as identical, it would seem that they had'been removed during one of the early Amorite invasions, for the Hittites, if they had car- ried them away, would scarcely have left them in this region. In 1885 Pinches published an inscription found by Rassam at Sippar, which also refers to Hana. The inscribed object is an oblong instrument partially of green stone, fixed into an orna- mental bronze socket which is in the shape of a ram's head, the eyes of which are inlaid with some white composition. On one of the broad surfaces is inscribed: **To Shamash, king of heaven and earth, Tukulti(-ti)-Me-ir, king of the country Hana, son of Hu-shaba, king of Hana, for [the safety of] his land and his own protection he has presented it.'' The text is printed with Assy- rian type, but when Pinches published the inscription in 1883 he considered that the script pointed to the time of the king then called Shalmaneser II. He mentions, however, that it contains a few archaic forms {T8BA 8, 351 if.). About fifty mUes below the city Merra on the Euphrates is situ- ated the present city 'Ana. It is regarded as being indescribably picturesque, and perhaps the most delightful city on the Euphrates. *Ana has long been identified with the ancient ^Anatho. Xeno- phon called the city Charmande. Isidore of Charax mentioned Anatho as being on ''an island in the Euphrates of four stadia." The emperor Julian, of the fourth century, mentioned Anatha as being a city of importance, situated both on the islands of the river XI. OTHEE MESOPOTAMIA^ KINGDOMS. 117 and on the shore. Yakut, about 1225, refers to * Anath as a strong fortress on an island. The city 'Anatho® is doubtless to be identified with the city Hanat^' mentioned in the tablet published by Pinches (CT 4, 1, see above), and Anat of Suhi, referred to by Ashur-nasir-pal as a city on an island in the Euphrates (I E 23: 15). "Whether there were twin cities, called 'Ana, perhaps on the bank of the river, and 'Anatu on the chief island, now called Lub- bad, to account for the different names handed down, remains to be seen. Yakut in regarding *Anat a poetical form of the plural of 'Ana, is apparently mistaken. Unquestionably these names have been correctly associated with the god and goddess Anu and Antu by Peters {Nippur I 144 ff.), and it is highly probable that this was the chief centre of their worship whence it was carried into the region lying east and west, even to Egypt. This being true, 'Anu and 'Antu were Amorite gods, as the writer has heretofore assumed (Amurru 142 f . ; see further Chapter XVII). If Hanat and Anat are the same, it seems reasonable also that the name Hana, written in cuneiform Ha-na, the name of the district, should be identified with the name of the god written Ana, Anu, Anna, Ani, and especially since the Semitic ayin which the name contains, as is shown by the West Semitic forms, is very frequently reproduced by h in cuneiform; cf. hammu, hahlu, yadah, etc., all reproducing the ayin, and espe- cially in Amorite names. The deity Hana is very probably the same as Hanu, Hani, and Han, which occur in Amorite names of the Harran Census and other Assyrian and Babylonian texts. This deity presided over an advanced civilization in the West, as is determined by the dis- covery of the ancient Sumerian prototype of the Hammurabi Code, a single tablet of which has been preserved and is now in the Yale Babylonian Collection. The colophon of the tablet reads "the " On 'Ana and 'Anatho, see Cemik Studien Expedition 1872-73; Ains- worth The Euphrates Expedition I 401 ff. ; Peters Nippur or Explorations on the Euphrates I 144 ff. ; and Setoff Parthian Stations of Isidore of Charax pp. 5 and 24; Scheil Annates de Tukulti Ninip II p. 42; Bell Amurath to Amurath p. 97 ; and Olmstead JAOS 38 p. 241. 118 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. law of Nisaba and Hani" {MI p. 19 f.). The goddess Nisaba, 'Hhe patroness of writing" {RA 8, 110), who wielded the stylus and gave understanding to Gudea, together with Hani who was '*the god of the scribes" and *'lord of the seal," are thus credited with being the givers of the laws. Perhaps Nisaba (or Nidaba), the consort of Hani, will prove to have been also a Western deity, but whose name, like Marduk and Nergal having been written with a cuneiform ideogram, in its transmission suffered a change in the pronunciation. It may prove to be the Sumerian name of Antu. From these considerations it appears as if the laws which have been credited to the Sumerians because written in their language very probably had their origin among the Amorites. And since the country was filled with these Western Semites during the Ham- murabi period, and that dynasty was Amorite, it is not improbable that the Hammurabi Code drew extensively from Amorite sources. This may account for the fact that actions of Abraham are in accordance with the Code, e. g., his treatment of Hagar, his adop- tion of his slave and steward Eliezer, etc. If the name of the city ^Ana and Hana are identical, the ques- tion arises was this the centre of the hegemony known as Hana which embraced the region of the Euphrates including the mouth of the Habur. It is probable that the kingdom Hana was ruled by a city and deity Hana. But is 'Ana, with its twin city Anatho on an island, whose name is written Anat and Hanat, the city in ques- tion? If this should prove correct, it must be conceded that not a few difficulties remain to be explained. As above, Suhi in. the time of Ashur-nasir-pal embraced the region in which Anat, the supposed Anatho, was located; Shamash-resh-usur was governor of Suhi and Mari; and as mentioned, in the tablet published by Pinches (CT 4:1), which belongs to the early period, Suhi borders on Mari. In other words it would seem as if *Ana or *Anat belonged in these periods to Suhi. Naturally the second millen- nium intervened, to which period the Hana contracts belong. Then also if the city 'Ana was the capital of the kingdom, the question arises did Isharlim, king of Hana, and perhaps also Ammi-bail, live in 'Ana or near Tirqa. The date of the marriage contract above referred to, as well as the land deeds, would seem to indicate that these kings were intimately identified with the XI. OTHER MESOPOTAMIAN KINGDOMS. 119 region in which Tirqa was situated. These questions cannot be answered until we have additional light on the subject. Shamash-resh-usur, who calls himself governor of Suhi and Mari, mentions the restoration of a canal of Suhi and the building of a city named Grabbari-ibni. Tiglath-pileser I says in one day he raided the country from Suhi to Carchemish (Annals V: 44 ff.). Several other important cities were located in this region. The date for the fourth year of Hammurabi referred to above, records the destruction of Malga as well as Mari. Tutul is another city in this district, which may prove to be Thilutha of Ammianus Mar- cellinus, now called Telbeis a little below 'Ana,'' where Julian informs us there was an impregnable fortress. The kingdom of Harran lay north of Hana, in the region which was called Aram or Aram Naharaim. There is an Arabic saying to the effect that the first two cities rebuilt after, the deluge were Damascus and Harran, implying that these cities were looked upon as very ancient. The name Harran, which means **road," was doubtless so called because it was situated on the great trade route. In short, it would seem that Harran was one of the most important cities in Mesopotamia in ancient times. Unfortunately, references to the city in early literature are singularly wanting. The earliest reference to the district and city are found in the Biblical traditions concerning the home of Abram. Even the Amarna letters and the Egyptian inscriptions throw little light on the region, unquestionably due to the fact that Mitanni then had possession of the land. The Assyrian kings claimed to have controlled the region from the time of Adad- nirari I of the fourteenth century. From this time it was incorpo- rated in the Assyrian kingdom. Valuable information concerning the district, however, is obtained from an Assyrian census taken in the seventh century.^ Though this period is far removed from the one under discussion, nevertheless it is highly probable that much of the knowledge con- cerning the culture can be applied also to the early period. In this census of the district about Harran, such details of each ^ Identified by Scheil Tukulti Ninip II p. 49. « Johns ADB, 120 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. form of arable land as vineyards, orchards, gardens, etc., are recorded. The names of the pater familias and his sons are given; the women are merely enumerated, as are also the live stock. The kingdom was divided up into units, called qdni. Certain cities, as Harran, Dur-Nabu, etc., were the centres of these qdni. The Harran qdni, for example, included the towns 'Atnu, Badani, lanata, Saidi and Han-suri, and the villages Arrizu and Kaparu. The large list of cities, towns, and villages that are named in the different qdni of the kingdom will prove of the greatest impor- tance when this region is explored, and excavations are conducted. Attempts at identifying some have been made, as for example Sarugi, which name is compared with Serug an ancestor of Abram, is thought to be represented by the present town Serudj. Balihi is thought to be on the river bearing that name, south of Harran ; Til-Nahiri is associated with Nahor, another ancestor of Abram.® The personal names found in these tablets are of great impor- tance in throwing light upon the cults of the district, for they inform us what gods were worshipped. The list of gods embraces Adad, Ata, Atar, Aja, Alia, Ashirta, Hani, Nabu, Nashhu, Shamshi, Ser, Si' or Sin, Ter, etc. The elements with which these names are constituted are in many instances Aramaic. Besides the use of the generic term for god, namely ilu, the deities occurring most frequently are Si' and Nashhu or Nashuh. Harran was known to be the great centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin; and we here learn that the city was perhaps also the original habitat of Nashhu, who became Nushu in Babylonia (see Chapter XVII). Doubtless, as investigations continue other important states in this Mesopotamian region will become known. ^ See Johns ihid., and also Kraeling Aram and Israel 25 f . XII THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS The various kingdoms or lands in the western part of Amnrru bore di:fferent names in different periods ; also some of the names used among one people differed from those used at the same time by another. In the early Egyptian inscriptions, the Lebanon dis- trict was called Retenu, while in the early Babylonian inscriptions it was called Tidanu or Tidnu. In the time of Gudea, Tidnu, together with Basalla, were designations of a mountainous district of this country. In the early Egyptian inscriptions, Phoenicia was called Zahi. In the Amarna letters this region including the Lebanon district was called Amurru, as weU as in the late Egyp- tian inscriptions; which name, as noted already, was used in Babylonia for the entire land west of that country. The name Tidnu was written with the cuneiform ideogram GIR- GIR. This ideogram also represented the name Amurru. GIR-ra also stood for Amurru.^ In the Amarna letters one of the dis- tricts probably of Palestine is called GsiTi{""'^Ga-ri).^ Winckler, Hommel and Steuernagel located it in the Negeb. Weber seemed to think that it was a mistake for '^°'*Ga-{az-)-ri {Amarna-Tafeln p. 1319). In view of the fact that Gazri is eight times referred to in the letters as a city and not as a country, this does not seem probable. Niebuhr, followed by Knudtzon, have suggested the identification of the name with the present El-Ghor, the Jordan plain. In Ta' annek No 2, there is a city Gur-ra^'. It is to be noted that Gir figures prominently in Babylonian place or geographical names, which in the light of other facts gives rise to the question, whether there is any connection;^ and especially as the worship ^ Cf. the equation ^**#wi — GlB-ra = A-mur — diti-ni (II R, 45 : 59e; V R, 8:85). 2 Cf. Amarna-Tafeln 256 : 23. ^ A name of Akkad, as noted before, is Uri, which is the name also of Amurru (see Chapter VII). It is, to say the least, an interesting coinci- (121) 122 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. of the West Semitic god Gir was carried to Babylonia (see Chap- ter XVII). A kingdom which properly belonged to the western region of Amurru is that which embraced the city of Damascus. The name of the district is called Ubi in the Amarna letters and the name of its chief principality is ^^Di-mas-qa, ''^Du-ma-as-qa and °'^Ti-ma- as-gi. The region at this time was subject to Egypt. In the Old Testament, the expedition of Abram to secure Lot, pursued the eastern allies unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. Hobah has beeen identified with Ubi. In the time of David, a city Zobah between Hamath and Damascus is mentioned as the princi- pality of Rezin, who later established himself in Damascus. This Aramaean kingdom lasted for over two centuries. The history of this kingdom, which lost its political importance when Rezin in concert with Pekah, king of Israel, rebelled against Assyria, is well known. The fact that Damascus is not more frequently mentioned in the inscriptions of the early period is not due to the fact that it did not possess much importance. The *'eye of the world," as Julian called it, could hardly have been other than a city of the greatest importance in the earliest period of the land's history. The plain of Damascus, regarded as the fairest of the four earthly paradises by the Arab, a rich and beautiful oasis, irrigated by the cold and clear mountain waters of the Barada, through which also flows the Pharphar, and adorned with a wealth of parks and gardens, is a veritable ''pearl of the East." But it was not only a great city in the latter half of the second millennium B. C. Such a natural dence that the name for the southern part of Babylonia has as its chief component also an element similar to another Amorite geographical name. For years it has been held that Shin'ar (or Sumer) is derived from Kin- gi{n), "land of the reed," by assuming the palatisation of the k, which becomes s before i, and n becomes r ; i. e., Kin-gin ■=. Kin-gir = Bi^igir = ^}^ll^ . This explanation has been adopted by certain scholars. It seems to the writer, however, since we have no justification for the reading Ein- gi{n), that the second element in the name is gir, as shown by Ki-in-gi{r)-ra (SBH 130, obv. 24: 25, 26 : 27), Ki-en-gi{r).rd{DU) {Gudm cyl. A 11 : 16 ; 21:25; B, 22:22). The apocopation of r in Sumerian is well known. XII. THE MEDITEBRANEAN KINGDOMS. 123 site in the very heart of the ancient Semitic world was inevitably settled in the hoary past. Such a site on the border of the desert, a veritable harbor, would never have ceased to be inhabited, and would by reason of its situation be a city of craftsmen and a mart for a large area of the Semitic world. Such considerations prompted the writer to look for the city mentioned among the earli- est records of Babylonia, which resulted in the identification of Mash^^ or Ki-Mash}'' in the inscriptions of Gudea and in date for- mulae of the Ur Dynasty, as the ancient name of the city; and also in asserting that it is highly probable that Mesheq in the Old Testament (Gen. 15: 2), is the same, namely Mash-qi. In other words, Mesheq in the passage is explained by the gloss *Hhat is Damascus."* There is a seal-cylinder in the Hermitage at Petrograd of an ancient king, ^'Hu-un-ni-ni patesi of Ki-Mash''% governor of Madqa . . . , " which apparently belonged to an early period.^ If the identification of the mountain Mashu of the Gilgamesh epic with Hermon, and the city Ki-Mash''^ with Mesheq (Damascus) is correct (see Amurru 126), then it seems highly probable that the early name of the country was Mash, which is to be identified with Mash, '*a son" of Aram (Gen. 10: 23)® This being true, the name for the Syrian desert found in the Assyrian inscriptions, although read """^Bar by some, and associated with the Hebrew word midhar, is preferably to be read with others, ""'"^Mash. The Joktanites (Arabian tribes) dwelt in the land ^'from Mesha as thou goest towards Sephar, the mountain of the East" (Gen. 10: 30). Sephar has not been located, but it seems that the direction in the description of the land, occupied by these descendants of Eber, was from north to the southeast ; and that Mesha is probably the city referred to. On the deity Mash and Mashtu see Chapter XVII. * The verse would then read : ''And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless and my family is a son of Mesheq — that is Damascus— Eliezer. " See Amurru 129 ff. and Miscl. Inscr. p. 2. 5 Cf . Sayce ZA VI, 161 ; and VB I 176. ® The parallel passage 1 Chron. 1 : 17, reads Meshek and the Septuagint in both passages Moo-ox- 124 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. There is a city Me-is-tu mentioned in the Amama Letters (256: 25) . This may prove to have been a city dedicated to the goddess J In the far north of the Mediterranean region there is a Semitic centre which played an important role in the earliest period of his- tory, as it does even at the present time, namely Aleppo. It is long since that Hallapu, probably also written Halman, has been iden- tified by scholars with Aleppo.^ Its great distance, however, from Babylonia, as well as other reasons, is responsible for hesitation on the part of some in accepting this identification.^ The nat- ural features of the city make it another location that would early be sought by people ; and this, it would seem, adds to the reason- ableness of the identification. Two fragments of a historical epic which deals with events of the time of Shar-banda and Tammuz, two kings who ruled in the earliest era known, refer to wars against Elam below, Halma above, and Tidnum in the West (see Chapter VIII). Halma is identified as another form of the name Halman. A text which has just been published by Barton is of the greatest importance in this connection {MBI 1). It is the earliest reli- gious text known. It was probably written, as he maintains, about the time of Sargon the founder of the dynasty of Akkad, who ruled, the present writer inclines to think, much earlier than the late date now generally assigned to him. Barton reads the pas- sage in the text: Tispah-ra hi za-ha-unu-su and translates: **To Ishtar from the land of Haleb." This text identifies the goddess Ashirta, as the present writer prefers to write the name, with the city Halabu. We then recall the passage in the prologue of the Code of Hammurabi (III 50 f.) which reads: *'Who put into exe- cution the laws of Aleppo, who makes the heart of Ashirta rejoice, the illustrious prince, the lifting up of whose hands Adad recog- ""If the writer's reading En-Mashtu for the Aramaic transcription of '^Nin-IB, namely ilti^IJi^, is correct (see above and Amurru p. 200), the town °'^Me-is-tu may be the °'^Nin-IB of the Amama Letters. « See Delitzsch Paradies p. 275 ; KAT^ 47 etc. ^ The fact that Halabu and Bit Karkara are mentioned in the prologue to the Hammurabi Code between Girsu and Adab is suggestive that they were Babylonian cities ; but this is by no means conclusive. That this city was a part of Babylon, as has been inferred, seems impossible. Xn. THE MEDITERBANEAN KINaDOMS. 125 nizes; who appeases the heart of Adad the warrior in Karkar, who reestablishes the appointments of the temple :^-ud-gal-gal." These two passages point to the fact that this is the most impor- tant centre of Ashirta-Ishtar worship known; and also, together with the first mentioned passage, indicate that the city was one of great prominence in the early period of Babylonian history. Ashirta-Ishtar has been regarded by some scholars as a uni- versal Semitic goddess, who became a male deity in some lands. Her worship, however, originally had a centre somewhere in the Semitic world. The texts from the Mesopotamian region would not lead us to suppose that her habitat had been there. The view that Ashirta-Ishtar had her origin in Arabia and is a development from the male god Athtar has little in it ; nor was she borrowed from Babylonia. In the light of the fact that the cult of Ashirta prevailed so extensively in Western Amurru, and was carried com- paratively early to Egypt, it would seem that her habitat was somie where in the Mediterranean district. Surely the two texts referred to, the one belonging to the early Semitic period, and the other to the time of Hammurabi, lead us to believe not only that Halabu, or Aleppo, is the most important centre of her worship known, but also that it was probably her original habitat. This fact may throw light upon the Cappadocian tablets, which furnish us with many names compounded with Ashir and Ashirta. Prob- ably the home of each was in this northwestern region of the Semitic world. Halabu was also a centre of Adad worship, of which we have several indications in the inscriptions. The Code of Hammurabi in the passage above referred to, as well as the syllabaries, point to this fact. In CT 25 16 : 22 '^Il-Ha-al-la-hu='^IM. Naturally it is possible that another of the many names of the storm-god may be implied, as Ashir, Uru, etc., but for the present Adad is under- stood.^^ Prefixing and pronouncing the word ''god'' besides writing the determinative for deity are West Semitic customs, to which the writer has previously referred. In short, it is highly probable that when excavations are conducted in this region, light will be forthcoming that will show not only that this is a very 10 Cf . also eqli ^Sin ^Ba-la-la^^ VS 1, 95 : 4. 126 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. ancient seat of Semitic culture but the home of the Ashirta cult (see also Chapter XVlf). From the Egyptian inscriptions it is ascertained that at least several of the coastal cities, notably Byblos, were in existence in the third millennium B. C, and, as stated, there is reason for believing the city had a much greater antiquity (see Chapter XIV). Simyra, another city on the coast mentioned in the Amarna texts, the modern Sumra, is also known in the texts of the third millen- nium B. C, having been identified with Simuru mentioned in the date formula of the 55th year of Dungi, king of Ur, about 2400 B. C. Some hold that Simuru was situated in the mountainous district to the east of the Tigris, because the subjection of the four cities Urbillu, Simuru, Lulubu, and Ganhar formed the object of a single campaign {SA, p. 287). This does not seem conclusive, for it is quite possible that Lulubu was chastised at the beginning or at the ending of the year's campaign. Urbillum may have been a city in the vicinity of Simuru. On his following campaign, Dungi destroyed Humurti and Ki-MasW'K Humurti has long since been identified by some with the Biblical Gomorrah, being a good tran- script of that name in cuneiform ; and Ki-Mash''% as noted above, is very probably Damascus. Certainly Dungi in gaining the title *'king of the four quarters," had at least conquered part of Amurru. Here properly the Amorite kingdom of the Lebanon region can be referred to, which belonged to the latter half of the second millennium B. C. The letters written in the Babylonian language and script to Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV by kings and subject princes, including copies of letters sent from Egypt, in the fifteenth cen- tury B. C, enable us to lift the curtain andget an intimate acquain- tance with the political situation of Western Amurru at that time. • The discovery of the Hittite archives at Boghaz-koi, an ancient capital of the Hittites, written in the same language and script, supplements our knowledge of this period from a different source in a most remarkable manner ; and also throws light on more than a century of years following the Amarna times. These documents include treaties made by the Hittites with kingdoms and states in Amurru (see MDOG 35). For years the Amarna tablets have been discussed and the light offered by the Boghaz-koi tablets has XII. THE MEDITEERANBAN KINGDOMS. 127 also been incorporated in the histories of the ancient Near East. When more knowledge of the early peoples of Amurru is forth- coming through excavations and research, these inscriptions will figure prominently in a comprehensive reconstruction of the land^s history. In the reign of Thutmose I (1547M501), the Mitanni nation, probably an Aryan people, is found occupying Aram, having taken possession of the old Semitic centre in some previous period. Mitanni apparently was a strong nation, and had great influence upon Amurru and Babylonia. Though the Cassites were ruling at Babylon, we find the nomenclature of the land contains a great many Mitannian names. In the Amarna letters, many of the city princes of Amurru also bear them. How is this to be accounted for? Did Mitanni at some previous time control Amurru along the Mediterranean? Three or four decades after the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt, Thutmose I is found contesting the supremacy of Mitanni. Probably we shall later on find that Mitanni played a role in the movement that brought the Hyksos into Egypt. Thutmose IV, a century later, desiring to establish friendly rela- tions with Mitanni, secured the daughter of Artatama, the king, for his son in marriage. She is thought to be the mother of his son, Amenhotep III. The two kings of Mitanni who followed, Shuttarna and Dushratta, also sought alliance with Egypt. In the Amarna period, however, Mitanni 's power was waning and seemed to give way to the Hittites. Internal troubles prob- ably were responsible for this, for we find Itakama, prince of the city Kinza, who belonged to the ruling house of Mitanni, in league with the Hittites. Shubbiluliuma, their king, having previously suffered at the hands of Mitanni, saw his opportunity to push fur- ther south and make inroads upon the Egyptian districts and Mitanni. In league also with Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru, Amorite princes in the Lebanon district who were subject to Egypt, he suc- ceeded in stirring up a revolt. These princes worked in the inter- ests of the Hittites and yet maintained their relations with Egypt by a duplicity that is almost incredible. The Phoenician prince Rib-Addi of Byblos insistently made efforts to open the eyes of the Pharaoh, but in this he failed. When asked why he had taken Simyra, Abdi-Ashirta pleaded that he had done so because 128 THE EMPIBE OF THE AMOEITES. he was asked to deliver the city from the Shehlal. At last the insistent declarations of Rih-Addi and other loyal princes had effect, and the princess treachery became clear; whereupon an army under the Egyptian Amanappa was sent, and Simyra was retaken, and with the land Naharin, was restored to Egyptian authority. Shubbiluliuma, not wishing to force matters at this time, aban- doned Itakama of Kinza and withdrew. When the Egyptians had retired he fell upon districts, of Mitanni, and without meeting Dushratta, marched in force into Naharin. Some princes resisted ; cities were captured; and the people of Qatna and the land of Nuhashshi were carried off to the Hittite region. Itakama, who had in the meantime reestablished his relations with the Pharaoh, together with his father Shutarna, attacked the Hittites ; but they were defeated, and carried away. On the accession of Amenhotep IV to the throne, the kings of Mitanni and Babylonia sent assurances of their sympathy on his father's death; and Shubbiluliuma also wrote him, recognizing his sovereignty in Asia. At this time he refrained from doing any overt acts which might arouse him. The Pharaoh, however, understanding the situation, had no desire to continue relations with him. Later the Hittite king wrote asking why he had not continued the correspondence which had been kept up by his father. A Hittite embassy even appeared at the new capital, which had been created by Amenhotep ; but he abandoned relations with the Hittites, for they had encroached upon his land. Abdi-Ashirta having been killed, his place was taken by Aziru, his son, who had already assisted the Hittites in taking Qatna, and in inspiring the princes of TJbi, the district about Damascus, to revolt. With the assistance of the men of Arvad he attacked Simyra, which with Byblos alone had held out, for Irkata, UUaza, Sidon, Beirut, and other cities had been defeated, and had gone over to him, while many other cities had been captured. During the time this had transpired, the faithful vassal, Rib-Addi of Byblos, continued to write beseechingly many times to his king, exposing the treachery of Aziru and begging for help; but his efforts were futile ; in the end he was killed, and his city taken. XII. THE MEDITERRANEAN KINGDOMS. 129 Phoenicia, and the Lebanon region north of it, including the Orontes valley, abont as far as Antioch, acknowledged the leader- ship of the Amorite Aziru. The disaffection of the northern Amorites had its effect upon the Canaanite princes. Several, as Milkili, Labaya, Zimrida and others, followed the same course of treachery that Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru had indulged in. Some of the southern princes, Biridiya of Megiddo, Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem and others remained faithful to Egypt and insistently appealed, as did Rib-Addi, for help, to stem the tide of the Habiri and Sutu; but finally the land suc- cumbed. Aziru was summoned to appear before the Pharaoh after he had captured the cities and killed Rib-Addi, Abi-milki, and other princes. After some delay he appeared at the Egyptian court, and succeeded, through influence, in convincing Amenhotep that he was loyal ; and having acknowledged Egyptian suzerainty, was returned to his land and reinstated, by the grace of Egypt, as a ruler of a kingdom of considerable extent. But his allegiance to Egypt, if he was actually sincere, was of short duration. Shub- biluliuma had sent his mercenaries, the Habiri, to assist him in capturing the cities, and he had regarded him in consequence as his vassal. He therefore attacked and defeated Aziru, who cast him- self at his feet, and swore allegiance. He was compelled to enter into a treaty; and an annual tribute of 300 shekels in gold was placed upon him. Aziru in the treaty is named as ' ' the king of the Amorites. '^ Although the Habiri had assisted the northern as well as the southern princes to throw oif the yoke of Egypt, it is not clear that Aziru 's kingdom included Canaan. Prom the treaty drawn up in the time of Ramses II, it would seem that the Pharaoh had concluded an alliance with Shubbiluliuma, leaving him in possession of Amurru. With Aziru 's grandson, Abbi-Teshshub, the terms of the Amorite vassalage were renewed in a treaty which Mursil, the son of Shubbiluliuma, made with him. The Hittites continued to maintain their authority in the district for four or five decades, until the stupor that enveloped Egypt, which had been brought on by Amenhotep IV, had disappeared. When Seti I came to the throne, he pushed through Palestine into 130 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Phoenicia, where the restoration of Egyptian supremacy was probably welcomed. He crossed the Jordan and set up his bound- ary stele in the Hauran. On a later campaign he met Hittite forces farther north, but it seems he only succeeded in reestablish- ing Egypt's boundary south of the Lebanons. During the time when Ramses II was active in Amurru, the Amorites under Put- Ahi threw off their allegiance to the Hittites ; but this king was later reinstated on the same terms of vassalage, and Gashuliawi, a Hittite princess, was given him in marriage. The Hittite king- stipulated in the treaty that the sovereignty of the land should pass to the son and descendants of his daughter (see MDOG 35, 43 ff.). In the treaty later drawn up by Ramses II and Hattusil II, the boundary between the two lands is not mentioned. Probably it was not advanced beyond the point established by his father; although this is also indefinite. In the rocks near Beirut, in his early years he had carved a stele ; at this time he carved two more, which may mark the extreme point of his supremacy. This being true, the Lebanon country north of Phoenicia, ruled by Put-Ahi, continued to be Hittite. Since the Solomonic kingdom did not embrace Phoenicia and the coastal cities further north, it is not unlikely that this kingdom continued to maintain its identity for several centuries; not only in quasi-independence, but probably, at least for part of the time, free from the suzerainty of other nations. On the Amorite kings who ruled on the east and west side of the Jordan see Chapter XV. XIII AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA As early as 1881 Pinches called attention to two tablets, one in the British Museum and the other in the Louvre, which he con- sidered were written in an unfamiliar language, and which because the tablets had come from the neighborhood of Caesarea, he called Cappadocian {PSBA Nov. 1881 11 ff.). A little later Professor Wm. M. Ramsay, at the suggestion of Professor Sayce, searched in the bazaars of Caesarea for additional specimens of these tab- lets, five of which he was able to secure. Subsequently M. Chantre, the French explorer, excavated Kara Eyuk 'Hhe black mound", so called because it is a mass of charred and burnt remains, about fifteen miles to the north-east of Caesarea, where the inscriptions were said to have been found. Besides tablets, considerable pottery and other antiquities were discovered at the site. {Mis- sion en Cappadoce 71 if.) In 1889 M. Golenischeff, the Russian Egyptologist, published a group of twenty-four tablets coming from the same quarter, which he secured in the bazaars at Caesarea, Constantinople, and Cairo. He determined that they were written in an Assyrian dia- lect; and was able to read most of the names. Later Delitzsch published an important philological study of these tablets ; which was followed by a discussion of them on the part of Jensen. Sub- sequently Sayce and Peiser published transliterations and trans- lations of a selection of the texts. Other tablets have since been published by Pinches, Sayce, Scheil, and Thureau-Dangin.^ It was early pointed out by Sayce and others that the people of this district observed a week of five days (hamustum), and reckoned time by a succession of officers called eponyms (limmu), a custom which we know the Assyrians observed in the first millennium B. C. These facts considered in connection with the use in names of the ' For a bibliography of the Cappadocian literature, see Johns Schweich Lectures 1912 88 f. (131) 132 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. god Ashir or Ashur were responsible for the assertion that the people represented a colony from Assyria. More recently Sayce has proposed that the tablets show that the silver, copper and lead mines of the Taurus were worked for Baby- lonian firms ; that roads and walled cities had been built in that region in order that troops could maintain order for the Baby- lonian merchants and their agents; and that the soldiers were mainly drafted from Assyria, which was then a province of Baby- lonia.^ The view that the names represent Assyrians, and that the tablets are dated according to Assyrian eponyms is shared also by Meyer.^ It is Jastrow's idea that the discovery of these tablets shows that the Babylonians had established an outpost here against the Hittites ; that they are proof of active business trans- actions between the Euphrates valley and Asia Minor; and that they are of the greatest value in illustration of trade routes that must have been established through the heart of Asia Minor at this early period.* It is not impossible that these observations will ultimately prove to be fact; but nevertheless they must for the present be considered as wholly hypothetical. The only connection with Babylonia found on the tablets is in the impression of a seal found upon one of them {RA VIII 142) ; the inscription of which reads : Ibi-Sin Ur-«^Shar-banda The mighty king Scribe King of Ur Son of Ur-Nigin-Gar King of the four quarters thy servant The design of the seal portrays a seated deity, before whom stands a demigod leading the worshipper. This seal which has its inscription written in Sumerian is in every way an exact counter- part of many seals found in Babylonia belonging to the Ur Dynasty; and is of a type altogether different from other seal impressions on the tablet. It also should be added that the indivi- dual bearing the name that is on the seal is not found in the text. With the exception of this seal the art of the others on the tablet ^Museum Journal IX p. 149. ^ Reich und Kultur der Chetiter p. 51. * The War and the Bagdad Railway p. 40. XIII. AMORITES IN CAPPADOCIA. 133 that have been published seems to be of a different type, and shows characteristics which are peculiar to the seals that Ward has desig- nated as Syro-Hittite. The inscriptions of eight seal impressions of different tablets published by Thureau-Dangin, with the one mentioned above, are composed of two lines, written phonetically, an example of which is : Ib-ni-*^Adad son of I-ti-A-sur. The art, as shown in the reproductions of the seals, which are not so clear as one could desire, seems to show that it also is different from what is recognized as Babylonian. What appears to be the only actual connection with Assyria that can be shown is to be found in a seal impression on another tablet from Kara Eyuk, published by Sayce, which bears the follow- ing inscriptions: ^arru-kenu{9) pa-te-si ^A-sir mar I-[ku-num] pa-te-si'^A-[sir] *'Sar[gon], priest-king or Ashir, son of I[kunum], priest-king of Ashir'' {Bahyloniaca IV 66 ff.). A transcription of the inscription has been published, but not a photographic reproduction of the seal impression. Whether any images accom- pany the inscription is not stated. Sayce restored the name I-[ku-num], and ingeniously suggested that Sarru-kenu is an abbreviation of the name Sar-ken-kata-Asir , whose name follows Ikunum as an ancestor of Ashir-rim-nisheshu {KTA 63: 6) on the supposition that in this inscription they are father and son; although close relationship cannot exist between the other three kings or patesis who restored the wall of Ashur during a period of about seven hundred years. In the advanced notice of the Ashur excavations reference is made to a Sharru-ki-in son of Ikunum in a newly discovered inscription (MDOG 38 p. 33, also 49 p. 50). It would seem, there- fore, that Sayce 's suggestion is probably correct, although it is possible that there was a later ruler named Shar-ken-kata- Ashir. Moreover, the inscription of the seal found on the Cappadocian tablet refers to Sargon, son of I[kunum], who were both patesis of Ashur. This seal, besides the employment of the five-day week {hamus- tum)j the dating by archons for reckoning time {limmu), and the deity Ashir found in personal names, represent the points of con- 134 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. tact with Assyria that have been pointed out ; and the seal impres- sion discussed above is the only point of contact with Babylonia, except that the Babylonian syllabary is used. The working of mines by Babylonian firms, the building of roads and fortresses as outposts against the Hittites, the drafting of soldiers from Assyria, the business relations between the Euphrates Valley and Asia Minor, although possible, are purely conjectural ideas. In the many Cappadocian tablets published the writer sees no basis for any of these statements. On the contrary, they are business and legal documents such as are commonly known as contracts and decisions, as well as letters of the character usually found in Baby- lonian temple archives. The transactions referred to are local business affairs ; and indicate a state of society quite independent of far-oif Babylonia or Assyria. The tablet with the Babylonian seal gives the names of three witnesses, Zilulu, Asur-dan, and Ikunum, and mentions their seals. On the tablet, however, are five seal impressions, three of which bear names Ikunum, Amur-Asir and the Ur-*^Sar-banda the royal scribe on the seal in question. The two impressions without names could be those of Zilulu and Asur-dan, and that of the other, the scribe who wrote the tablet. But in what capacity was the seal of Amur-Asir used, as his name is not in the text? The seal of Ur-'^Shar-banda may have belonged to a royal scribe who drew up the document ; in which case the tablet was written in the time of Ibi-Sin, King of Ur. It of course may have been used at a later time by one of the contracting parties of the docu- ment or a witness who had come into possession of it. The occur- rence of the seal bearing the name Amur-Asir must be explained in this way ; for as stated, no individual of that name is mentioned in the document. However, since we know that the control of the Ur kings very probably reached into this region, and because the script of the tablet can be said to belong to this general period, it is possible that the scribe was a representative of the crown. This being true, how is the existence of the names in the tablets which are compounded with that of the deity Ashir or Ashur, and the observance of the hamustum and limmu to be explained, if what scholars assert is true, namely that these are importations from Assyria? If that is correct, it follows that they are indications Xm. AMORITES IN CAPPADOGIA. 135 of a greater antiquity for the Assyrian civilization than is at pres- ent recognized. But it scarcely seems reasonable that Assyrian soldiers in the control and service of Babylonia would have had such influence upon the culture of the district as the introduction of such institutions as the hamustum, and that documents would be dated according to Assyrian reckoning. Rather does it seem, if these are actually importations, that Assyria dominated the dis- trict in some earlier period, of which also we do not have at pres- ent the slightest indication. The tablet with the Assyrian seal discovered in Cappadocia, and written in the Cappadocian dialect, raises questions even more difficult to answer. Is it actually a seal of the patesi ; and if so, was he present in person ; or was it used by some official to give authority to his action? If there was one ruler named Ilu-shuma in the early period who was a contemporary of Sumu-abu, the founder of the Babylon dynasty, Sargon would have ruled about the time of the grandfather of Hammurabi. If, as Meyer proposes, there were two early rulers named Ilu-shuma {Geschichte §463), then Sargon could have ruled perhaps after the time of Hammu- rabi. Moreover, the question is, did the jurisdiction of Assyria extend to this far away district of Asia Minor also in this period? If the kings of the Ur Dynasty controlled this region at an earlier time, did Assyria, when Ur lost its supremacy, come into posses- sion of.it? If so, Assyria must have played a role in the overthrow of the Ur Dynasty, of which also there is at present not the slight- est indication. Moreover, in the time of Hammurabi, as above, we know Babylon was the suzerain over Assyria. At Yuzgat a large tablet was found written in the same script, but in another dialect, probably the same as the tablets from Arzawa in the Amarna collection. This tablet is in possession of the University of Liverpool. Another, purchased at Aleppo, now in the possession of Mr. Berens, which was published by Sayce {P8BA 1907 91 ff.), probably came from a Hittite source in northern Syria. In the spring of 1914 about two thousand tablets were discovered somewhere in Cappadocia, a large number of which are now in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Unfortunately these have not yet been published or deciphered. 136 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. The discovery of the Amarna tablets written by princes through- out Western Asia has shown how extended was the use of the Baby- lonian syllabary and also the language in the middle of the second millennium. Some of the letters show that the script was used also for other languages. The same is demonstrated by the dis- covery of the Hittite archives at Boghaz-koi, not far from Kara Eyuk on the other side of the Halys. In other words, we are familiar with an extensive use of the Babylonian language and script in the second millennium B. C. in this part of the ancient civilized world. The Kara Eyuk tablets, we are led to believe, belong to the third millennium, which supposition is based largely upon the script being regarded as early Babylonian. The question therefore arises, how much earlier was what we call the Babylonian script in use in this part of the ancient world? It is known that Babylonian kings a millennium earlier than the Ur Dynasty exploited this region. Were their language and script then introduced? Scarcely the surface has been scratched in this vast region. Most of what we know at present of the peoples who lived there has been gained through what is called surface research. Kara Eyuk, Boghaz-koi, and a few other sites have been examined, but what revelations will excavations at other sites in Lycia, Phrygia, Cili- cia or Pamphylia bring forth. A civilization comparable in anti- quity and development with that of Egypt and Babylonia doubtless existed in Asia Minor. The discovery of the Minoan civilization in Crete dating about 2800 B. C. offers a foretaste of what is to be expected. The ruin hills of Asia Minor when excavated will yield materials not only for the solution of innumerable problems, but also for knowledge of undreamed of peoples and civilizations prior to the dawn of the Greek period. Not many years ago nothing was known of the Hittites save what is contained in the Old Testament. To-day largely through contemporaneous records from other lands, and also through some of their own, we know considerable about the Hittite empire which played such an important role among the great nations. Presumably through excavations other peoples of this district will become known, the knowledge of whom may com- pel a radical readjustment of our ideas concerning origins and the early history of Western Asia. XIII. AMORITES IN OAPPADOCIA. 137 While, as above, the syllabary used in these Cappadocian tablets is what we call early Babylonian, it must be kept in mind that the handwriting of these inscriptions is peculiar to the district. Cap- padocian tablets can usually be recognized by their general appear- ance. The script has peculiarities, and as mentioned, they are written in what is regarded as a dialect, under the influence of the Hittite or some other tongue of the region. The tablet with the Babylonian seal impression was scarcely written by the royal Baby- lonian scribe whose seal it bore. Nor is it likely that the seal belonged to a local scribe, for the names of the seal are inscribed in Sumerian. Then also, as mentioned, the art of this seal is typical Babylonian. In short, the character and contents of the docu- ments, the forms used in the contracts, the language, the script, etc., do not show that they were written by Babylonians or Assyrians, or in the interests of Babylonians or Assyrians ; but imply rather that they are the products of a civilization that may have existed for a long time in this region. Further, the custom of dating according to eponyms shows that there was already a provincial organization of an advanced order. Among the personal names in the Cappadocian tablets there are some that have been recognized as Hittite or non-Semitic; but most of them are West Semitic or Amorite. The deities that figure prominently in the names are Amurru, Ashir (or Ashur), Ashirta, Anu, Adad, Shamash, etc. Not only do the deities show that the people are Amorite, but also the elements with which the gods* names are compounded. Not a few of these have been Baby- Ionized, owing to the use of that language and script, but the mass of them clearly show their Amorite origin. To what extent Western Semites moved into Asia Minor is not known. It would seem that the mines in the vicinity of Kara Eyuk would have been as attractive to them as to others. Whence came the cultural elements which these people had in common with Assyrians is a question. Probably if we had more knowledge of the early history of the intermediate country, prior to the occupa- tion of the Mitanni people, we would have light on this problem, which for reasons given awaits solution. XIV EGYPT AND AMURRU Egyptian scholars agree that there was a Semitic element that vigorously asserted itself in the beginnings of Egyptian civiliza- tion. The language of Egypt lexicographically and grammatically shows this. Also craniological research has shown that the north- ern Egyptian in the early period, in contrast with the southern, shows what is called a decidedly Semitic or Semite-Libyan type, the same as found on a First Dynasty representation of a Bedouin from the First Cataract. The introduction of sun-worship is also credited to this Semitic element, because it is generally supposed to have emanated from Western Asia. It is recognized that during the dark period of several centuries from about 2350 B. C, when Memphis was given up as the capital, and the kingdom was split up into petty principalities as in pre- historic times, many Semitic loan words were introduced.^ It is to be noted that it was during this very period that the Amorites invaded Babylonia and established the dynasties of Nisin, Larsa and Babylon. (See Chapter VIII.) In the first half of the second millennium B. C, an Asiatic people called the Hyksos completely dominated Egypt for a century, or, as some hold, a much longer time. Contemporaries called them ''Asiatics" or ''barbarians." The late traditions of Manetho call them Arabians and Phoenicians, while Josephus, in his dia- tribe against Apion, calls them Hebrews. When Ahmose I (1580- 1557 B. C.) captured Avaris in the eastern part of the Delta, he drove them northward into Amurru. He even pursued them as far as the land Zahi (Phoenicia). It was not until more than half a century later that Thutmose III was able to break up finally the ^ Bondi Dem HehrdiscJi-phdnezischen Sprachzweige angehorige Lehn- worter in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Texten; also Burchardt, Alt- kanaandischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegytischen. (138) XIV. EGYPT AND AMUERU. 139 coalition of the Amorite kingdoms, which had their centre at Kadesh on the Orontes. Besides three rulers of the Hyksos who bore the name Apophis, three others are known, Khian, Khen-zer and Jacob-hur or Jacob-el.^ The last mentioned is Semitic, and perhaps also one or two of the others. Prof. J. H. Breasted thinks that it is not impossible that some chief of the Jacob-tribes of Israel for a time gained the leadership in this obscure age, and that. such an incident would account surprisingly well for the entrance of these tribes into Egypt. This, in his judgment, would make the Hebrews in Egypt a part of the Bedouin allies of the Kadesh or Hyksos empire {HE p. 220). Prof. W. M. MtQler, in his recent work on Egyptian mythology, informs us that a very considerable part of Egyptian religious thought was derived from or was influenced by the mythology of Asia. He thinks it must be assumed that at On-Heliopolis, the earliest centre of Egyptian religion, which was situated at the entrance of the caravan route from the east, there was a constant interchange of ideas in the most remote periods. An illustration of this is to be found in the Semitic myth of the conflict between Marduk and Tiamat, the god of light and the primeval monster of the abyss, which reached Egypt after 2500 B. C, where it gave rise to the story of the gigantic serpent Apop ('A7ro<^ts), the enemy of the sun-god. Muller says that only faint traces of the recreation of the world from the carcass of the abysmal dragon are found, but other ideas bearing on the conflict with the monster recur in many variants {EM 104 ff.). The introduction of this myth into Egypt in this early period, prior to the time any influence from Babylonia and Assyria had been felt, and nearly two millenniums earlier than it can be shown that the Assyrians had made use of it, is a most interesting substantiation of the position taken by the writer on its Amorite origin and especially since it only appeared, as far as is known, in Assyria in the time of Ashurbanipal {Amurru 44 ff.). In the more primitive stages of Egyptian civilization, when ancient local tradition played such an important role, Muller does ^ Petrie, it should be added, has proposed the identification of many other names of Hyksos rulers. 140 THE EMPIBE OF THE AMORITES. not think the borrowings consisted in more than the religious motifs; at least the actual names of gods in this period do not seem to have been generally appropriated. An early exception, however, was Ba'alath, the goddess of Byblos in Phoenicia, who became known and venerated in Egypt soon after 2000 B. C, when she was identified with Hat-hor (see EM p. 154). It seems to the present writer that perhaps Orion, whose name appears to be a formation from Uru on an, like Shimshon, is also an exception. He was early brought to Egypt, where he was the ^'hero of the sky," and identified with the sun-god Horus, and associated also with Osiris. Doctor H. F. Lutz proposes that this deity may also prove an exception ; Osiris, he thinks, is of West Semitic or Amorite origin ; and was probably also borrowed by the Sumerians or early Babylonians. Among the reasons given by Lutz is the comparison of Osiris' epithet Usr wnn nfrw ''Osiris the good Being" with the Sumerian or Babylonian Asarludug (often read Silig-lu-sar) which has the same meaning ; and also because of the connections between the Osirian mythology and the Amorite Tammuz- Adonis myth which was introduced in Egypt as early as the Pyramid texts, 3000 B. C, or earlier. Here should be added also the fact that the Pyramid texts narrate how after Osiris was murdered by Set, a part of his body was washed ashore in a great chest at Nedyt, whither Isis his wife journeyed to reclaim it. Plutarch's narra- tive of the myth makes Byblos the place where his body was found. Breasted thinks this may be Nedyt, although it was later localized at Abydos. If, however, Byblos was introduced into the myth, this occurred before the thirteenth century B. C.^ The parallel between the Babylonian Tammuz and the Egyptian Osiris has been pointed out by Baudissin {Adonis and Eshmun 1911), and others. Barton maintains that Osiris and Tammuz are independent survivals and manifestations of a primitive cult once common to both Hamites and Semites, but originally Osiris and Isis were Hamitic, while Tammuz and Ishtar had their origin in Arabia {JAOS 25 213 ff.). In the light of all that is known, however, there seems little reason for doubting that Tammuz and Ishtar are Amorite ; and it is not ^ Development of Religious Thought in Ancient Egypt, p. 26. XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 14-1 impossible that the Asiatic connections of Osiris and Isis, that have been suggested, may also prove correct. Following the Hyksos occupation of Egypt, or after 1600 B. C, MuUer says the worship of Asiatic deities became fashionable in Egypt, being propagated by many immigrants, mercenaries, mer- chants, etc., from Syria. Ba'al is described as the god of thunder, dwelling on mountains, or in the sky, and terrible in battle. Since Ba*al means simply ''lord" and is a generic title of deities in Palestine, the kind of a god referred to was probably one like Amurru or Adad. Other gods imported from the Amorite land were Resheph or Reshpu, who is once called Reshpu-Sharamana, a syncretistic formation which combines the names of Reshpu with another Amorite god, Shalman or Shalmu; Astarte (Ashirta), "the mistress of heaven," whose chief temple was at Memphis, but who was also worshipped at Ramses and elsewhere ; Qedesh, pictured, like the nude goddess of Babylonia, standing on a lion and holding in one hand a serpent, and in the other, flowers ; Asit, probably another form of Astarte ; Anat, who like Astarte is war- like and sensual ; and a few other goddesses not so frequently men- tioned, namely Atum, probably the consort of the god of Edom, Nukara or Nugara the Amorite Nikkal (Nin-gal), Amait, etc. {EM 153 fe.). The earliest occurrences of the name Amurru (which is written 'mwr, 'mwr' and 'mr') are in the inscriptions of Ramses II (1292- 1225) of the Nineteenth Dynasty. In the early period they called the country along the Mediterranean Retenu, which may be related in sonae way to the name Tidnu given the land by the early Baby- lonians. The country east of the Orontes, extending to or beyond the Euphrates, was called Naharin. Retenu with its fenced cities was looked upon by the Egyptians as well inhabited, and civilized, but its people they regarded as vile. Thutmose III after making a peaceful tour of inspection through Upper Retenu had a long series of reliefs made, representing the fauna and flora of what he called ' ' God 's land. ' ' The inscriptions mention commerce and booty or tribute as coming from Retenu in the shape of gold, silver, lead, copper, chariots wrought with gold, malachite, feldspar, precious stones, colors, incense, myrrh, cedar. 142 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMORITES. ivory and other woods, cattle, etc. The ancient records of Egypt certainly attest the great wealth of this land. The references to cities of Amurru are found in the inscriptions of the second millennium.* How many of these cities existed in the third and fourth millennium B. C. cannot be determined. There are reasons for believing that one at least figured quite prominently in the earliest period of Egyptian history. The ref- erence made above to Byblos in connection with the Pyramid texts {ca. 3000 B. C), or the recognition that city received as early as 2000 B. C. in having her Ba'alath venerated in Egypt (Mtiller EM 154), would alone be suggestive of its importance as a great city, and probably also a very ancient one. Shechem, it should also be added, is mentioned in connection with an Egyptian campaign in the Twelfth Dynasty. The unwarlike attitude of the Egyptians, prior to the aggression of the Semites, is responsible for the few references to the Amorite land in the early period. Few and brief as they are, they furnish us with most valuable glimpses of the civilization that existed in that land, which we have reasons for believing had a great anti- quity. The fuller references occur in the later period; but even these enable us to picture the life and activity that must have pulsated in this region in the earlier millenniums. Snefru of the Third Dynasty, at the beginning of the third millen- nium B. C, mentions bringing forty ships filled with cedar wood from Lebanon. This is the earliest naval expedition on the open sea that is known {BAR I, 146). Sahure (Fifth Dynasty) about 2743-273P dispatched a fleet against the Phoenician coast. A relief discovered at Abushir * These have been collected and discussed in the well known work by Miiller, Asien und Europa. Cf. also Burchardt, Alikanaan'dischen Fremd- worte, and Paton, Egyptian Records of Travel in Western Asia. ^ The writer is not entitled to independent judgment as regards Egyp- tian chronology. The dates used are taken from Breasted 's History of Egypt, which is in accord with the Berlin school. These are much shorter than those of Petrie and other Egyptologists who on account of certain evidences, some of which were known and believed by the Egyptians themselves, hold that the beginnings of Egyptian civilization were much earlier. XIV. EGYPT AND AMUERU. 143 shows four of his ships filled with Semitic prisoners from the Phoenician coast cities. This is the earliest known representation of sea-going ships, and the earliest picture of Amorites who are clearly distinguishable from the Egyptian sailors/ Uni, of the Sixth Dynasty, about two centuries later, in the reign of Pepi I (2590-2570 B. C), had been sent five times against the *' sand-dwellers " of Southern Palestine. In a sixth expedi- tion he crossed over in troop ships to the back of the height of the ridge on the north of the " sand-dwellers. ' ' When his army reached the highway, he smote all the revolters. This is the first known Egyptian invasion of Palestine. {BAR I, 311 ff.) The tale of Sinuhe, the Egyptian, which relates his adventures in the time of Sesostris I (1980-1935 B. C), throws most valuable light upon Palestine in the twentieth century. This nobleman of high rank had accompanied the young coregent Sesostris on a suc- cessful campaign against the Libyans, when the news of the death of the aged king Amenemhet I reached the camp. Without any announcement, Sesostris hurried secretly back to the capital, but Sinuhe, who accidentally overheard the message, apparently for political reasons, fled eastward across the Delta into the desert. On arriving at the frontier fortress he eluded the watches on the wall. After wandering many days in the wilderness, and suf- fering greatly from thirst, he was finally succored by an Amorite who had been in Egypt and who recognized him. He took him to his people. Later he was sent from one land to another until he came to Byblos. He finally reached Qedem where he spent a year and a half. Then Ammi-enshi, the sheik of Upper Tenu (i. e. Retenu), brought him forth, saying: ''Happy art thou with me; thou hearest the speech of Egypt," for Sinuhe was known to the Egyptians who were with him. He entered the service of the Amorite chieftain, became the tutor of his children, married his eldest daughter, and was allowed to select from the choicest of his lands. The goodly land named Yaa yielded figs and vines. "More plentiful than water was its wine, copious was its honey, plenteous its oil. All fruits were upon its trees. Barley was there and spelt; without end all cattle." He ^ Burchardt, Grahdenkmal des Konigs Sahure, Vol. II. 144: THE EMPIBE OF THE AMORITES. was appointed sheik of the tribe. His children became the mighty men of his tribe. His hospitality and his consideration for cara- vans were such that he boasted of them. In his old age longing to see his native land, and be embalmed after death, he sent a messen- ger with a petition praying the Pharaoh to forgive him and allow him to return. On receiving a gracious rescript, he handed over his property to his children and set out for Egypt, where he was reinstated in high favor. This romance which doubtless gives a true picture of life in Retenu, i. e., northern Amurru, shows what a fertile, prosperous and delightful land it was to live in. In the time of Sesostris III (1887-1849 B. C.) of the Twelfth Dynasty, Sebek-khu, his commandant, on a marauding expedition, pillaged a place or district called Sekmen in Retenu. This is the first Egyptian invasion of northern Amurru of which there is a record. It may have been prompted by the aggressive attitude of the Amorites, to which power Egypt a little later succumbed {BAR 1 680 f.). A very important mural painting was found in a tomb of a gov- ernor of Sesostris III, named Khnum-hotep, which throws consid- erable light upon the land of Amurru in this era. It depicts the visit of thirty-seven men, women and children, who are Semitic Asiatics, called 'Amu. Generally the Egyptians despised the 'Amu, which is the usual designation for the dwellers of Palestine. The 'Amu are headed by the chief of the highlands, Abesha, who is depicted presenting a fine wild goat. A kilted attendant leads an antelope. The people are all richly dressed; the women besides wearing sandals are depicted with socks. One man is playing upon a lyre. Their possessions are tied to the backs of asses. The scene presents a picture of a highly civilized people, the equiv- alent it would seem of that which Egypt possessed, at least from their appearance. The inscription reads : * ' The arrival, bringing eye paint, which thirty-seven Asiatics ( 'Amu) bring to him. Their leader is Sheik of the hill-country, Abesha ' ' {BAR I, p. 281 ) . This name is the same as the Hebrew Abshai. Ahmose I (1580-1557 B. C), in recording the siege of the city Hatwaret (Avaris) and its capture, after which he pursued the Hyksos into Asia to the city Sharuhen (Josh. 19: 6), furnishes us XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 145 with the first glimpse of what took place following the Asiatic rule of the Hyksos, concerning which unfortunately there is such a pau- city of data. According to Manetho the Hyksos made their last stand at Avaris before being driven out of Egypt. Sharuhen fell after a siege of six years. It is thought, according to a record of Ahmose-Pen-Nekhbet, that Ahmose I then pushed northward into Syria, and invaded Zahi {BAR II, 1 ff.). Thutmose I, about 1530 B. C, invaded Naharin as far as the Euphrates, slaughtering his foe, and taking numberless prisoners. On the west bank of the Euphrates he set up his boundary tablet, which fact is ascertained from the inscription of his son Thutmose 111 {BAR 11, 81 1), Thutmose II, about 1490 B. C, conducted a campaign in ''Betenu the Upper," as far probably as Niy on the Euphrates {BAR II, 125). Following a period of inactivity on the part of Egypt, the king of Kadesh succeeded in stirring up all the allied kingdoms of Zahi, including Mitanni east of the Euphrates. Thutmose III (1479- 1447 B. C. ) at the head of his army moved upon the strong fortress at Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon which guarded the road between the Lebanons. Here the coalition was defeated, after which Thutmose marched northward and captured the cities Yenoam, Nuges and Herenkern, which commanded the thorough- fare between the Lebanons. These cities he dedicated to Amon. The record of the spoil taken at Megiddo by Thutmose III throws interesting light upon the wealth of that district. He records hav- ing received 2,041 mares, 191 foals, 6 stallions, 924 chariots, 200 suits of armor, 502 bows, 1,929 large cattle, 2,000 small cattle, and 20,500 white small cattle, perhaps goats. Although the people living in the vicinity of Megiddo from whom this loot was taken can scarcely be classed as nomads, they must have possessed great wealth in herds and flocks. On his second campaign through Palestine and southern Syria, he received submissive kings and gathered tribute. Even Assyria sent gifts. The reliefs of his third campaign, as mentioned above, depict the flora and fauna of Syria, which he brought back. Annals for his fourth campaign are wanting. On his fifth, he moved against the northern coastal cities. He captured Arvad, seized 146 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. some Phoenician ships, and returned by water. Having gained the south country and the coast on his sixth expedition, he landed his army at Simyra by the mouth of the Eleutheros, and marched upon Kadesh. This fortified city in the north end of the valley lay on the west side of the Orontes, and was surrounded by water. After a siege of several months this formidable city was captured. The balance of this season and his seventh campaign he spent in chastizing Arvad and Simyra again, and engaged from the coast towns a liberal supply of provisions for the campaigns he expected to conduct in Naharin, the district beyond Kadesh. On his eighth campaign, two years later, he captured Qatna and Senzar. Aleppo must also have fallen, for he pushed into Naharin to the ''Height of Man," where he fought a great battle. Many towns of Naharin were captured and laid waste. He then turned towards Carchemish, where he fought his foe, perhaps the king of Mitanni ; after which he crossed the Euphrates into that land, and set up his boundary tablet. On his return to the west shore of the river he found the tablet of his father, Thutmose I, alongside of which he placed his own. The capture of the city of Niy, a little to the south on the Euphrates, completed his work, after which the princes of "Naharin brought tribute to his camp. Babylon, as well as the Hittites, also sent gifts at this time. Following his achievements of the ten years, he erected at Karnak two enormous obelisks which he inscribed ''Thutmose who crossed the great bend of Naharin (Euphrates) with might and with victory at the head of his army. ' ' One of the pair now stands in Constantinople, while the other has disappeared. The following year found Thutmose III again in Zahi, putting down a revolt. Two years later at Araina, perhaps in the lower Orontes valley, he defeated another coalition formed by his Naharin foe. Several years after this he again chastised South Lebanon ; at which time Cyprus, Arrapahitis and the Hittites paid tribute. His seventh and last campaign was occasioned by Kadesh inciting his allies of Naharin and especially the king of Tunip to revolt, which resulted in the destruction of that city and the subjugation of the country {BAR II, 391 if.). The most important record bequeathed to us by Thutmose III was inscribed on one of the pylons of Karnak, containing his XrV. EGYPT AND AMUREU. 147 annals, in which long lists of peoples and Ambrite towns are found. The striking fact is that in spite of all the vicissitudes which this land suffered through conquests and migrations, many of these names were in use in late Biblical times, and remain unchanged at the present time. This fact, considered in connection with the knowledge that some cities are known in the early period, suggests the idea of a much greater antiquity for the civilization than is generally recognized. Amenhotep II (1448-1420 B. C), the son of Thutmose III, reigned but one year, when all Naharin and Mitanni revolted. Early in May of the following year he fought at Shemesh-Edom against the princes of Lebanon, whom he defeated. A little later, after a skir- mish near the Orontes, he reached Niy, which city acclaimed him its sovereign. He punished the city of Ikathi, and at Tikhsi he captured seven princes of that district, whom he hanged on reach- ing Egypt. As his father and grandfather had done, he set up a memorial tablet somewhere in Naharin marking his northern boundary. In the vicinity of Napata he set up a stele marking his southern boundary. He drove before him in triumphal procession, as he proceeded to Memphis, 550 nobles, 240 wives, golden vessels to the weight of 1660 pounds, copper, nearly 100,000 pounds, 210 horses and 300 chariots {BAR II, 780 ff.). Thutmose IV (1420-1411 B. C.) apparently maintained the boundaries of the Asiatic empire established by his father. Men- tion is made of Naharin, against which one campaign was con- ducted. He refers to cutting cedars in Betenu, and proclaimed himself ' * conqueror of Syria. ' ' His father had secured for him in marriage the daughter of Artatama, king of Mitanni, in order to strengthen his alliance with that country. She was named Mute- muya in Egypt; and became the mother of the successor to the throne {BAR II, 820 f.). Amenhotep III (1411-1375 B. C.) was the last of the great emperors. He married an untitled woman named Tiy, who occu- pied a position of great influence during the reign. Circumstances were such that he was not obliged to carry on warfare with Amurru, for he had little occasion for anxiety from his subjects. He enjoyed unchallenged supremacy throughout Syria, Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni, and Alashia, with whose rulers he maintained 148 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMORITES. the friendliest of relations. We learn this, not from his monu- mental records, which throw little or no light upon the situation, but from the so-called Amama Letters which contain official corre- spondence between this ruler and his successor, on the one hand, and on the other the rulers of the nations referred to. It was only in the latter days of his long reign that trouble appeared in Syria. Hittites from Cappadocia invaded Mitanni, and the provinces of Egypt on the lower Orontes, and began the absorption of Syria. Vassal Amorite princes were in the conspiracy, and Ubi, the region of Damascus, was threatened. The Hittites and the Habiri, their allies, mercenaries or subjects, began to invade the land. During the reign of Amenhotep IV (1375-1358 B. C), the heret- ical king who assumed the name of Ihnaton, the dissolution of the Asiatic empire took place, and it was finally absorbed by the Hittites. On his accession Dushratta of Mitanni and Burra-Buri- ash of Babylon sent greetings and sought friendly relations with the Pharaoh. Seplel (written Shubbiluliuma in cuneiform), king of the Hittites, did the same and sent gifts, but apparently Amen- hotep had little desire of maintaining the old relations with Seplel, for the Hittites had already begun to encroach upon his land. "With the assistance of the unfaithful vassal Abdi-Ashirta and his son Aziru, who headed an Amorite kingdom on the upper Orontes, and Itakama who had taken Kadesh, the Hittites, with the aid of the Habiri, steadily advanced southward. The faithful vassals of the Pharaoh one after another succumbed until the entire land was lost to Egypt (see also Chapter XII). Besides the Amarna letters, a single Egyptian monument of this reign gives instruc- tions regarding the disposition of Asiatics whose towns had been plundered and destroyed, and who had come to settle in Egypt (BAR III, 10 f.). Seti I (1313-1292), after the lapse of half a century, records his chastisement of the Bedouin in southern Palestine, who were mak- ing common cause against the Palestinians. After this he cap- tured towns in the plain of Esdraelon, and erected a victory tablet in the Hauran ; at which time the princes of the district came to him and offered their allegiance. Two years later he is found storming a walled city in Galilee called Kadesh, which had been founded by the Amorites Abdi-Ashirta and Aziru ; and later he XIV. EGYPT AND AMUERTJ. 149 pushed northward against Merasar (Mursili), son of Seplel, king of the Hittites, whom he met in the Orontes valley. It does not seem that any important decision was gained, except that the move- ment of Hittites southward was checked. Later he made a treaty of peace with Metella (Mutallu), who had succeeded his father Merasar {BAR III, 82 ff.). A few miles south of Tell Ashtarah in Bashan a stele has been found in which Seti I is represented offering a libation to Amon. Ramses II (1292-1225 B. C), about twenty years after the attempt of Seti I to wrest the land from the Hittites, made his first move against Metella. This occurred in his fourth year, when he seized Kadesh on the Orontes. He left evidence of his activity near Beirut in the shape of a stele cut into the rocks overlooking the Nahr-el-Kelb (Dog Eiver). Metella by the aid of the kings of Naharin, Arvad, Carchemish, Kode, Kadesh, Nuges, Ekereth, and Aleppo, besides drawing upon his allies in Asia Minor, amassed a great army. The battle of Kadesh which followed is the first in history whose strategy can be studied. The Hittite king by clev- erly masking his manoeuvres, flanked Ramses, who was taken unawares. The battle was undecisive, yet Ramses returned to Egypt and celebrated the event as a triumph. Several years of campaigns followed. Naharin was conquered as far as Tunip. After about fifteen campaigns the Hittite king died, and Ramses made peace and a treaty of alliance with Hetasar (Hattusil), his successor, which continued effective throughout his long reign {BAR III, 316 ff.). Merneptah (1225-1215 B. C.) was advanced in years when he came to the throne. Not long after his ascension he discovered that the northern Mediterranean peoples, called by the Egyptians, *' peoples of the sea," among whom were the Theku and Peleset (Philis- tines), together with allied peoples, were making incursions from the north and especially Asia Minor ; and were plundering his ter- ritory in coalition with the Libyans, who were encroaching upon Egypt. This movement resulted in the decline of the Hittite power in the north, with whom the Egyptians had no further con- flict. In a poetic encomium celebrating his victory over the Libyans, without mentioning his allies from the north Merneptah makes 150 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. reference in the last section to Israel. It reads : * ' The kings are overthrown, saying Salam ! Not one holds up his head among the Nine Bows. Wasted is Tehenu, Heta is pacified; plundered is Pekanan (the Canaan) with every evil; carried off is Askalon; seized upon is Gezer ; Yenoam is made a thing not existing ; Israel is desolated, his seed is not; Palestine has become a widow for Egypt ; all lands are united, they are pacified ; every one that is turbulent is bound by King Merneptah, giving life like Re, every day. ' ' In a letter from a frontier official, mention is made of Edomite Bedouin being allowed to live near Pithom (cf. Gen. 47: 1-12), in order to pasture their cattle (BAR III, 623 ff.). Ramses III (1198-1167 B. C.) records in relief, scenes of his inva- sion of Northern Syria and Asia Minor. It shows him storming five strong cities, one of which is called ''the city of Amor,'' another presumably is Kadesh surrounded by water {BAR lYy 59 ff.). Sheshonk (945-924 B. C.) is the first Pharaoh mentioned by name in the Old Testament, who in the fifth year of Rehoboam invaded Palestine (1 Kgs. 14: 25). On a large relief found at Karnak he gave a list of between fifty and sixty names of towns in Israel and about one hundred in Judah. Of the total number only about seventy-five are preserved, of which seventeen can be identified. Beth 'Anath in Galilee is the most northern city recognized; and Arad in Judah the most southern {BAR IV, 709 ff.). A study of the Egyptian monuments of the early period tends to show that considerable influence was exerted from Amurru, where in important centers a civilization of a high order existed already in an early age. It is recognized that emigrants poured also into Babylonia and Assyria. Politically Amurru is not known to have come into contact with Egypt in the early period ; never- theless, it is not impossible, as stated in a previous chapter, that one or more of the dark periods in Egyptian history are to be explained as being due to encroachments of the Amorites, as we have definite proof, occurred in the history of early Babylonia. In the period prior to the Hyksos rule, that is, before 1700 B. C, there is no evidence from the Egyptian monuments to show that XIV. EGYPT AND AMURRU. 151 there was any kind of a political union of the different principali- ties of Amurru. This is due to the extreme paucity of references to the country on the monuments. The Hyksos movement unques- tionably must have represented united activity on the part of Amorite kingdoms. Following their expulsion, there can be no doubt but that the Amorite cities of the Mediterranean region were leagued together in resisting the invasion and conquest of the land by Thutmose III. A study of the Egyptian monuments of the second millennium, without any knowledge from other sources, reveals a stability and permanency of civilization in Amurru that suggests a very long period of development. The stubborn resistance offered the Egyp- tian hosts by the walled cities, the way their strength from time to time was revived, the amount aiid character of the booty taken, the enormous tribute received by Egypt, the knowledge we have of the commerce carried on, besides many other considerations, tend to confirm the idea that the civilization of Amurru had a great anti- quity ; and that back of the earliest traces of it, there was a chain or development which covered many centuries. XV AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT The Amorites are regarded in the Old Testament as pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine ; where we get the correct impression that their history largely belonged to the past. The term Amorite is used as having an ethnic signification, but it was also used fre- quently in a collective or geographic sense. The Canaanites lived along the coast, and the Amorites in the hills or high ground (Josh. 5: 1 etc.) ; but the terms are frequently used synonymously (Gen. 18 : 22 etc.). In some instances all the inhabitants of the land, the Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, etc., are designated as Amorites (Josh. 7:7), even the Philistines (1 Sam. 7: 14) ; and in other instances the Amorites are listed among the different peoples of the country (Josh. 24: 11). The earliest reference in the Old Testament to the Amorites is found in the narrative of the Elamitic campaign to Palestine and the country to the south of it. This took place during the short period when Elam was dominant in Babylonia, in the latter part of the third millennium B. C. Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagamar), king of Elam, was accompanied by Arioch, king of EUasar (Larsa), Amraphel (Hammurabi) king of Shinar (Babylon), and Tidal king of Goyyim (perhaps Guti), (Gen. 14: 1). These kings made war with Bera, king of Sodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar). All these joined together in the vale of Sid- dim (the same is the Salt Sea). Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-Karnaim (probably Tell 'Ashtara in Bashan), the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in Mount Seir, unto El-pa- ran, which is by the Wilderness. These kings returned and came to Em-mishpat (the same is Kadesh) and smote all the country of the Amalekites and also the Amorites that dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. The latter place is identified in 2 Chron. 20 : 2 with En-gedi, which (152) XV. AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 163 was situated in the high cliffs at the mouth of the gorge of Wady Ghor running into the Dead Sea at about the middle of the west bank. Some scholars, however, identify it with Thamara between Elath and Hebron. Kadesh has been identified about fifty miles south of Beer-sheba. When the Israelites came to Kadesh-barnea it is said that they had reached unto the hill country of the Amo- rites (Deut. 1: 19, 20). Sihon's Amorite kingdom is said to have reached unto the Gulf of Akabah (see below). This invasion, it would seem, passed through the country on the east side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, and extended southward. If the identi- fication of Humurtu with Gomorrah should prove correct, the Babylonian army of Dungi at an earlier time had also visited this region. Certainly as stated above, the title ''king of the four quarters,^' which he acquired, points to activity in Amurru. The statement that Abram dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, the Amo- rite, brother of Eshcol and Aner (Gen. 14: 13), refers to Amorites living near Hebron in southern Palestine (Numb. 13: 23 b). ''The land of the Moriah'' whither Abraham was commanded to take Isaac and oif er him for a burnt offering upon one of the moun- tains, seems to refer to the Lebanon district. In his journey, "on the third day he lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off." The Peshitto version reads "the land of the Amorites" instead of "the land of the Moriah." The Septuagint translator not understanding the text, used the words "the highland." The writer of 2 Chron. 3: 1, who refers to "the mountain of the Moriah, ' ' apparently having the temple hill of Jerusalem in mind, seems to have based his statement upon this passage after the name had been corrupted. The Septuagint version here reads it cor- rectly "of the Amorites." The Hebrew in both instances has the article, "the Moriah." If the shortened form Moriah had actu- ally been used as well as Amoriah, it would be an interesting- parallel to the name in cuneiform, where the initial letter also in some instances has disappeared (see Chapter YII). Isaac before dying informs Joseph that he had given him Shechem which he had taken from the Amorites : "I have given to thee Shechem above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and bow" (Gen. 48: 22). This tra- dition apparently alludes to the capture of that city by his sons. 154 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. There is a Jewish legend which tells of an attack made by seven Amorite kings upon Jacob at Shechem, and of his victory over them (Jubilees 34, 1 to 9). The Amorites in the time of Moses continued to be dominant on the east side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. The river Arnon flowing into the Dead Sea ''was the border of Moab between Moab and the Amorite'^ (Numb. 21: 13). Sihon king of the Amorites refused to let Israel pass through his border; and Israel smote him and took his land, from Arnon to Jabbok, even unto the chil- dren of Ammon. Israel dwelt in all the cities, in Heshbon the city of Sihon, and all the towns thereof (Numb. 21: 21-26). Jazer, another city of the Amorites in this district, is also mentioned by name as captured (v. 32). And Israel ''turned and went up by way of Bashan, where Og king of Bashan came out against them. ' ' He also was defeated, and Israel possessed his land (w. 33-35). Although Og, king of Bashan, is called a king of the Amorites, it is said he "remained of the remnant of the Rephaim,'^ a great race of that district. The territory of these "two Amorite kings" is said to have extended from Aroer on the edge of the valley of Arnon even unto Mount Sion (also called Sirion and Senir, i. e. Hermon), and all the Arabah unto the sea of the Arabah (which is the Gulf of Aka- bah) (Deut. 3: 8 ff. and 4: 47-49). The two kingdoms therefore included Bashan, Gilead, Moab, and Edom to the Gulf of Akabah, a region of no small extent. After the Amorites beyond the Jordan had been conquered, Israel crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho, fought and defeated the men of Jericho, the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites (Josh. 24: 8-11, 15 arid 18). On the west of the Jordan, Joshua and the inhabitants of Gibeon, who are said later in the time of David to be of the remnant of the Amorites (2 Sam. 21: 2), fought and defeated five Amorite kings, namely Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, Hoham of Hebron, Piram of Jarmuth, Japhia of Lachish, and Debir of Eglon (Josh. 10: 3 ff.). The older population of Judah being called Amorite throws light on the passage in Ezekiel concerning Jerusalem: "the Amorite was thy father and thy mother was a Hittite" (Ezek. 16 : 3). XV. AMORITES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 155 The Amorites also dwelt in Heres, Aijalon and in Shaalbim, and tried to force the children of Dan into the hill country, but the latter prevailed and made them tributary (Judg. 1: 34 ff.). "While we have knowledge of a number of petty principalities of the Amorites on the west side of the Jordan there is no evidence of a kingdom or kingdoms such as those of Og and Sihon on the east side. "When excavations are conducted in this region there may be discovered remains of a much earlier Amorite civilization than has yet been found in Western Palestine. Unfortunately only a few names borne by Amorites are men- tioned in the Old Testament. Some of these like Adoni-zedek, Japhia, Debir can be said to be Semitic, while others remain unde- termined. The same can be said of the five kings mentioned in the Elamitic campaign (see Chapter II). XVI ASSYRIA AND AMURRU The country of Assyria, owing to its proximity to Amurru, seems to have been extensively influenced by that land. This follows from a study of the religion and nomenclature of the Assyrian inscriptions both early and late. Not only was the country settled by Amorites, but they kept pouring into it in various periods, as they did into Babylonia, and Egypt. In spite of the fact that the excavations conducted in Assyria have not been inconsiderable, little has been found that throws light on the beginnings of the land's history. The inscriptions of Shal- maneser I and Esarhaddon furnish us with references to an early king named Ushpia (also written Aushpia), the traditional builder of E-harsag-kurkurra, the temple of Ashur ; and to Kikia, who is regarded as the traditional builder of the wall of Ashur {Ghron. I 122, 140). Also in a late chronicle we learn that Hu-shuma, king of Assyria, marched against Su-abu, who is considered to be Sumu- abum, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon {ibid. 1 p. 129). The first contemporaneous record bearing upon Assyria from Babylonian sources is a military despatch of Hammurabi, which refers to his troops and the country of Assyria (LIE III p. 14), which in this period was subject to Babylon. The earliest known references to Assyria in the inscriptions belonging to such a comparatively late period, the question as to the origin of its civilization has frequently been touched upon. Heretofore it has been customary, with the Biblical tradition of Nimrod, to regard it as having been an offshoot from Babylonia, largely because of the script and language and certain cultural elements.^ The early inhabitants of the country, whether Semitic or non- Semitic, did make use of what we call the Semitic Babylo- nian language, and the Sumero-Akkadian system of writing. ^ See Rogers History of Babylonia and Assyria (II 133 ff.)- (156) XVI. ASSYRIA AND AMURRU. 157 Moreover the Sumerian temple names, the many Sumerian terms used for religions rites, etc., point unmistakably to Sumerian influ- ence at some previous time ; but whether this was by direct contact with the Sumerians or indirectly by contact with the Semites who lived in Eastern Amurru, who had been influenced by the Sume- rians, or from both sources, cannot be determined. The excavations conducted by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Kalah-Shergat, the site of ancient Ashur, on the Tigris, yielded besides inscriptions, the earliest known antiquities of that land. In the. lowest stratum, which was separated by charred debris from the one above, there were found several pieces of rude sculp- ture which are suggestive of the work of the Sumerians, familiar to us from the excavations in Southern Babylonia. The inlaying of the eyes with shell, the Sumerian physiognomy, the shorter head, and the treatment of the garments, make it reasonable to think that prior to the period when the foundations of the temple of Ishtar at Ashur were laid, the people were under the influences of the Sumerian civilization, which prevailed in Babylonia at the same time (see King HB 137 f.). Whether the Assyrians were under the influence of the Sumerian craftsmen in their original home, before they settled Assyria, is another question that cannot be determined at present. In Amurru 138 ff., the writer proposed, after a consideration of the use of certain West Semitic deities in the early names of temples and individuals, that the early Assyrian culture, with which we are familiar, arose, or was extensively influenced by migration from the West. It is interesting to note that recent publications of Johns and King accord with this idea.^ This is also accepted by Luckenbill ; who, however, holds that the earliest Semites of Assyria were borne in on what he calls the first of the successive migrations from the desert of Arabia into the Euphrates Valley, which movement of Semites brought Sargon and Naram- Sin (ca. 2500 B. C.) into Babylonia, when supremacy was for the first time gained by them (see AJ8L 28, p. 154). With this view the writer feels constrained to differ in every detail, as is evident from the results presented in this work. ^ Johns Ancient Assyria p. 10 ; King HB p. 137. 158 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. It has been suggested that the two earliest known traditional rulers, Ushpia and Kikia, were Hittite-Mitannian (cf. Ungnad BA VI 5 p. 13). If this is correct, no other influence from this quarter has been pointed out. It is not impossible that the Mitanni people had already pushed into Aram. It would seem that these kings lived prior to the time of the Ur Dynasty, for the rulers of Ur, who bore the title ' * king of the four quarters, ' ' would hardly have per- mitted an encroachment upon the territory north of Akkad. Since Ka( ?)-sha-Ashir and Shalim-ahum preceded Ilu-shuma (KTA 60), who is thought to have been a contemporary of Sumu-abu, founder of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon, the beginning of their reigns would be near the time the Amorites established themselves on the thrones of Nisin and Larsa.^ Probably there was at least a fresh ingress of Amorites at this time. If the Semites who lived in Assyria prior to this period were Babylonians, they have left no traces of their culture which can be said to be peculiarly their own, except the use of the language and script. In an inscription found at Ashur, Ashir-nirari (about 1800 B, C) calls himself *Hhe builder of the temple of ^En-lil-labira." Some may incline to cite this as an example of influence from Babylonia. As stated below in Chapter XVII, En-lil '4ord of the storm" is very probably another designation of the Amorite storm-deity. This is confirmed by the reference of Tiglath-pileser I to this very temple in Ashur, in which he mentions it as *'the temple of the god Amurru, the temple of the elder Bel, the divine house" (King Annals p. 87). The passage becomes intelligible if we understand it to mean that Amurru is the elder hel mdtdti, or Enlil. The god Ashir or Ashur is not known to have been worshipped in early Babylonia. In Cappadocia, at a time probably contem- poraneous with the Ur dynasty, hence earlier than the earliest Semitic inscriptions at present known from Ashur, the deity was very prominently worshipped. Besides, as referred to (see Chap- ter XIII), the two regions had certain customs in common; and we 3 Esarhaddon refers to a king EUil-bani, son of Adasi, who was made a ruler by Ura-imitti, but he seems to have been the ruler by that name of the Nisin dynasty, in other words a Babylonian. XVI. ASSYRIA AND AMUERU. 159 have reason for believing that either the one locality influenced the other, or there was an intermediate civilization, of which we have at present no trace, that influenced both. As mentioned also, the names of the early rulers of Assyria, being constituted with the Amorite gods Ashur, Adad, Dagan, and Shamshi, show that they were probably Amorite. Besides, the earliest temple of which we have knowledge was erected to Adad and Ann, who were also Amorite gods (see Chapter XVII). The earliest known Assyrian king who records that he came into contact with the land Amurru was Shamshi- Adad III, who ruled about 1600 B. 0. He calls himself sar kissati, which is usually translated ''king of the universe," and informs us that he devoted his energies to the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates (KTA 2 Obv. 5-9). Further, he states that he set up a memorial stele in the country of La-ah-a-an (Lebanon), on the shore of ''the great sea" (the Mediterranean) {KTA 2, IV: 13 ff.). He does not mention having had any conflict in this part of the land, which would indicate that he probably ruled prior to the time the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt, after which Western Amurru became tributary to that land. Ashur-uballit, who lived about 1400 B. C, is credited by a descendent with having conquered the lands of Shubari, Musri, etc. (KTA 3 Obv. 33 and 4 Obv. 25). His grandson Arik-den-ilu conquered the bordering lands to the west and north-west of Assyria, including the Aramaeans (Ahlami), and Sutu peoples (KTA 3 1: 21). Adad-nirari II, his son, about 1300 B. C, who called himself "king of the universe," conquered many strong- holds along the Euphrates, including Harran as far as Carchemish (KTA 5 Obv. 13). Shalmaneser I also makes the same claim {KTA 13 Rev. Ill: 4). Tukulti-Inurta, about 1260 B. C, claimed to be "king of the universe, king of the four quarters" {KTA 17 Obv. 1-2), the latter title being more comprehensive than the former.* The four quarters, as is well known, embraced Akkad on the south, Shubartu on the north, Elam on the east, and Amurru on the west; but the latter country could only have been conquered in part, for it was during this time that the Egyptians and the *^For translations of these texts, see Luckenbill AJSL 28, 167 ff. 160 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. Hittites were contesting for the supremacy of the land along the Mediterranean ; and in fact no mention is made of Assyria being involved in any of the references to the control of this territory in the Egyptian inscriptions (see Chapter XIV). From a little later on, in the time of Tiglath-pileser I, about 1100 B. C, refer- ences to this part of Amurru are found in that ruler's inscriptions. Amurru, with Mitanni already occupying Aram, it would seem, in the sixteenth century was dominated completely by neighboring powers. The Hittites had encroached upon the land from the north and the north-east; Egypt, after driving back the Hyksos, con- trolled the western part of the country along the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, even crossing it ; and Assyria had continued to hold by raids or conquests at least part of the eastern region. While the Egyptians and the Hittites came into conflict over the western lands, Egypt and Assyria do not seem to have experienced any difficulties with each other ; although Assyria, desiring to be on friendly terms with Thutmose III, sent costly gifts, which were interpreted by the Egyptians as representing tribute. The friend- ship of Egypt also seems to have been greatly desired by both Assyria and Babylonia in the time of Amenhotep III, as is shown by the Amarna letters. Moreover, the Assyrian inscriptions of the latter half of the second millennium show us that repeated con- quests were necessary to maintain supremacy in the part of Amurru which that nation tried to hold. Shamshi-Adad, the earliest ruler mentioned above who claims to have been solicitous for the welfare of the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates, is doubtless the ruler bearing that name who built the temple at Tirqa on the Euphrates (see Chapter X). He is the only early Assyrian king who claims to have done more than conquer and subdue ; and it must be admitted that it is an interest- ing discovery to have found evidence of the constructive activity of this Assyrian king in this region in the shape of the votive tablet referred to in Chapter XL In the inscriptions of the following period we learn that Tiglath- pileser I (about 1125-1100), who had extended greatly the terri- tory of Assyria, sailed in ships of Arvad upon the Mediterranean ; which he called ''the great sea of Amurru'' {KB I 48: 8). Although the title ''king of the four quarters" included Amurru XVI. ASSYKIA AND AMURRU. 161 (see above), Assyrian inscriptions prior to this time do not men- tion the name Amurm. Ashir-bel-kala in his inscription mentions the gods of Amurru (King AKA p. 153). Ashnr-nasir-pal refers to the great sea of Amurru, and to receiving tribute from the kings on the shore of the sea from Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Mahallata, Maisa, Kaisa, Amurru, and Armada (KB 1 108: 85 and 86). Adad-nirari III says he conquered Hatti, Amurru, Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Omri (Israel) and Samaria (KB I 190: 11), showing that he did not include Palestine in Amurru. Sargon informs us that he ruled the wide land of Amurru, in which he included Hatti and Damascus (X: 17, XIV: 22, 46; Annals 52). Sennacherib considers that Amurru included the cities of Philistia and Phoenicia, as weU as Beth-Amon, Moab, and Edom (KB II 90). Ashurbanipal also included Palestine in Amurru.^ The references show that in the Assyrian inscriptions of the first millennium the confines of Amurru varied, and the name had an uncertain signification, the same as in the Old Testament; moreover, the name is usually found with the gentilic ending as in the Old Testament. ' See Tofteen AJ8L 1908 p. 31. XVII THE DEITIES OF AMURRU An exhaustive study of the religions of Amurru would embrace not only all the ancient inscriptions that have been discovered in the land, including the Old Testament, but all the light that can be gathered from contemporaneous sources. It would include also certain elements of belief that survive at present, which represent the unconscious inheritance of previous millenniums ; also sacred sites, objects, rites and practices.^ The purpose of the present effort being to establish the existence of an antiquity for the Amorite civilization and to show its influ- ence upon other nations, it must suffice to discuss briefly only such details of the early history as the contemporaneous records offer ; and instead of attempting to reconstruct the religion of the Amor- ites, which at the present would be an impossibility, little more can be done besides presenting the knowledge that we have of the prominent deities that they worshipped. In such a review it is necessary to bear in mind that many different nations or tribes occupied this territory, some of which were non-Semitic. To what extent these peoples ' religion influenced the Amorite, and whether any of the deities we now consider as Semitic were foreign, cannot be determined. Then it is known that different petty principali- ties, as in Babylonia, had their own and distinct names for gods who were worshipped in other districts under other names. The fact that so many of the deities of the land were storm-gods, and were identified with each other, would seem to confirm this. Even Jahweh was regarded by the Hebrews as a storm-deity, a god of the mountains. Certain groups of deities are mentioned in the Aramaean inscriptions, as for example in the Panammu inscrip- tion, Hadad, El, Resheph, Rekeb-el, and Shamash ; it is nevertheless 1 Small but valuable compends of the early religion of Canaan are Cook The Religion of Ancient Palestine, and Paton The Early Religion of Israel (162) XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 163 impossible at the present time to attempt a reconstruction of a pantheon or pantheons — ^in fact, it is possible to do little more than discuss in some instances the attributes of the gods, and set forth in a general way the facts that can be gathered concerning them. But this knowledge coming from contemporaries who had adopted the deities, or referred to them, very often shows such modifica- tions of what is usually regarded as the original conceptions of the deities, that its value appears to be only relative in arriving at per- manent conclusions concerning the sex, nature and attributes of the Amorite gods. In not a few instances it has been ascertained that the character of gods was changed after they had been transported to other lands. These changes may have been due to various causes. The deity of the mountains when brought into the plains would grad- ually lose his mountainous character. A storm-god transported to a rainless land would naturally have other attributes empha- sized. If Ea is Amorite, as is claimed, and the ideogram En-M, **lord of the earth," is an indication of the nature of the god in the country where he was indigenous, we can only conclude that it was when brought to Eridu in southern Babylonia, a city that had been built on land regained from the sea, that he became a god of the springs and the deep. Rivalry, prejudice, or contempt may have been responsible for a deity's being regarded quite differently in a foreign land from the way he was regarded in the land where autochthonous. Urra in Babylonia was looked upon as the god of pestilence, plague, destruction, etc. Ne-Uru-Gal, Urra-Gal, or Urru, the Nergal of Cutha, was the god of the underworld as well as of plague and pestilence. If Cutha was a Babylonian city of the dead, we should have a reason for this conception of the deity. He, as well as other deities, who originally partook of the same nature as the god Uru or Urru or Amurru, are gods of war like the storm-god Adad (see below). A storm-deity is naturally a god of destruction, as well as one who has considerable to do with vegetation. It would seem reasonable to infer that the idea that this deity was a god of plagues, pestilences, and death had developed in the land which had from time to time suffered violence at the hands of the hordes who worshipped him. Such a god of the invaders, perhaps ruth- 164 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. less, was regarded as rasuhhu, ''the terrible." Nergal, although adopted in the Babylonian pantheon, may have continued to be recognized as a god of the West. With this understanding it is not difficult to comprehend how a god of the Amorites, who had again and again invaded Babylonia, would be regarded as such a deity. Doubtless the same conception arose in the West concern- ing the Babylonian and Assyrian war gods, who had brought calamity so often upon the people ; but unfortunately we have no way at present of determining this. Another modification which the original character of certain deities suffered was the change in sex, a question which Barton and others have fully discussed. (See Semitic Origins pp. 120, 191 if. etc.). When the goddess Ashirta was carried into Arabia, she became the god Athtar ; and the god Shamash became a god- dess. In the Nippur Name Syllabary it would seem that Shamash in the name Tu-li-id-^Samsi{-si) {UMBS XI 1, 39) was also regarded as feminine. Urta, the goddess of the Amorites in Baby- lonia, became masculinized, although the name In-Urta stood for a goddess as well as a god (see below). Some scholars see in this transformation of sex the idea of the combination of the two principles, male and female. True, Venus was credited with an androgynous character by certain ancient writers of the late period, but the existence of a hermaphrodite in the Semitic world is yet to be proved. In the development of theological systems in the various Baby- lonian centres we find many attempts at identifying one god with another. Such a practice was perfectly natural in a land into which foreign gods were constantly filtering. As a result the syl- labaries of deities contain many syncretistic formations, such as Uru-Mash, Shar-Maradda, Shar-Girru, Nannar-Gir-Gal, Amar- Utug, etc. Such formations were known also in the West, as Ashtar-Chemosh, Hadad-Eimmon, 'Attar-' Ate, Itur-Mer, Bir- Dadda, Giri-Dadda, Jahweh-Sabaoth, Jahweh- Shalom, etc. As is well known the generic designations or titles as El "god," Ba'al "lord, owner," with its corresponding feminine form Ba'alat, were used in connection with deities of different localities. It seems Malik or MeleJc, probably the same as Molech of the Old Testament, was another such appellation. In only a few instances XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 165 can the names of the deities who are represented by such designa- tions be surmised; to cite a single example, the Ba' al of Harran was the moon god Sin. In Egypt Ba' al became the name of a deity, as was Bel, another name for Marduk in the Neo-Babylonian period. Adon ^4ord'' is another such term. This element appears frequently in Assyrian texts, as A-du-na-i-zi, A-du-ni- ha--al, A-du-ni-ili-a, etc. Ahu ** father ^^ is found in many Old Testament names like Ah-rdm, Ahi-hud, Ahi-melech, Ahi-shua' , etc., where, as in other Semitic lands, it is used as a substitute for the name of a deity. 'Am written in cuneiform Amma, Hammu, etc., which some regard as a designation of ^'the father-uncle, '' borne by the husbands of a wife when polyandry was practiced, is also used instead of a deity in personal names, cf. *Am-ram, 'Ammi-el, *Ammi-hud, etc.^ In view of the fact that the name of Amurru or Uru is the same as that of the land, and that Aloros **god Uru'* stood at the head of the Chaldean mythological list of antediluvian kings, it would seem that the god Amurru or Uru was the head of the pan- theon of Amurru. Nevertheless, because of our very limited knowledge of the Amorite religion it seems best at this time to consider the deities alphabetically. Adad is one of the most prominent deities of the Western Semites. He is known in the Old Testament as Hadad. The name is found written in cuneiform: A-da-ad, Ad-du, Ad-di, A-ad-du, A-da-di, A-da-da, Da-ad-da, Da-di, Ha-di, etc. Another name of this deity, perhaps arisen as an epithet, is Bamman, also written Ramimu, Bimmon, v^^imv (2 Kgs. 5: 18), etc. (see Deimel Pantheon Bahylonicum, 43 f.). Adad, together with Shamash, figures prominently in the Hittite treaty, where both bear the title ^4ord of heaven.^' In one of the Amama letters, Abimelech, king of Tyre, likens the Pharaoh to Shamash and Adad. In the Aramaic inscription of King Pan- ammu of northern Syria (eighth century), he is mentioned at the head of a list of five gods ; Hadad, El, Resheph, Rekeb-el, and Shamash. In Assyria and Babylonia, to which lands they were carried, Shamash and Adad were lords of divination. In Assyria ^ See Baton's article on 'Amm in Encyclopaedia of Beligion and Ethics. 166 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMORITES. a common name for the early rulers was Shamshi-Adad. The name may mean * ' My sun is Adad, ' ' but it also may mean ^ ' Sham- ash is Adad/' a syncretistic formation, many examples of which have been found in Amurru (see above). There are other deities of the West lands, including some that are not Semitic, that have been likened to Adad of Amurru, namely Dagan of Amurru, Teshub of Su^S Adgi of Suhi'S H-Hallapu, Bu-We-ir.^ "We are dependent for our knowledge of the nature of Adad largely upon the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, where he was regarded as the weather-god, the god of the tempest, inunda- tions, lightning, and thunder. Gods as well as men seemed to stand in awe of him because of his power over the elements. He was the lord of abundance at the same time that he was of want and hunger, which resulted from his withholding the rain. His destructive power made him an appropriate war-deity; and we find Hammurabi speaking of him as *'the mighty bull who gores the enemy." Doubtless, Adad is meant by the picture of the powerful bull breaking down the fortress representing a deity in an Egyptian scene. It should be added that Adad's close associa- tion with Shamash, especially because of the very common combi- nation Shamshi-Adad in names, and other facts, show that attributes of a solar-god were blended with those of a storm-deity in Adad. Adad, unlike several other West Semitic deities, although brought into the Babylonian pantheon, was not identified with any particular centre in Babylonia, at least as far as is known at pres- ent. In Assyria his position was di:fferent, for one of the earliest temples was erected to Anu and Adad. Later, Ashur supplanted Anu, and the two prominent deities of the land became Ashur and Adad. In the art of the seal cylinders, Adad is frequently seen resting his foot upon a bull, or standing entirely upon the animal, which he leads by a leash attached to a ring in its nose. In the same hand he holds a thunderbolt ; the other hand is usually held against the breast. The many devotees of Adad (^^IM) among the Amorites ^ See CT 25, 16 and 17 etc., but especially in connection with the many forms in which the god Amurru or Uru occur (Chapter VII). XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 167 living in Babylonia, as is shown by the impressions of seal cylinders in the time of the First Dynasty, is an indication as to how exten- sive was the worship of the deity at this time. Adgi is a name of the storm-god Adad in the land of Suhi, according to the list of gods CT 25, 16 : 19. It occurs in the name Ad-gi-ilu of the Assyrian documents (ADD 17 : 3), and in the name Ad-gi-si-ri-za-had-du of the Murashii texts {BE X 55: 1), which is also written in the Aramaic endorsement on the tablet, "iDH^ti^Jllh?. In the latter name the god seems to be syncretized mth Siri, namely Adgi-Siri. Amurru or Uru. It has been previously maintained by the writer that the name of the West Semitic deity Amurru or Uru, when brought into Babylonia by the Semites, was written differ- ently in different centres. For example, at Babylon the name appeared Amar-TJtug, probably a syncretistic formation ; at Cutha it was written Ne-TJru-Gal, TJrra-Gal, etc. On the ideographic and phonetic writings of the name, see Chapter VII. In studying the inscriptions of the seal impressions on tablets dated in the time of the First Dynasty, one is struck with the num- ber of individuals who acknowledged obeisance to Amurru {'^Mar- tu). What especially stands out in these seal inscriptions is the writing "^El- Amurru (^AN-Mar-tu). The two signs for deity have been regarded as representing a Phoenician plural, and read eltm or elomm; or it has been read '^An-Mar-tu and regarded as a com- bination of Anu and Martu^ There can be little doubt but that the reading is, as stated above. El- Amurru, or 'El-TJru (see Amurru 1909, p. 158). This name appears frequently in the syllabaries of deities written 'El-Mer {^Ilu-Me-ir) ; and it is another example of the prefixing of the word for god to names of deities like 'El- Shaddai, 'El 'Ely6n,Il-Tammesh,Il-Tehri,Il-Teri, Al-Si', Al-Nashu (Amurru p. 158), also Il-Kanshan, and Il-Ashirta (Lutz EBL p. 4). The custom of actually pronouncing El **god" as a prefix to the name of deities, as the writer has indicated, was apparently West Semitic. Moreover, one needs only to consult the names of the * See Krausz Gotternamen p. 9, and Hommel's editorial note in same, p. 56. Radau reads AK-^MAE-TTJ, holding that MAB-TU was identified with the highest and oldest Babylonian god AN (BE 28, p. 41). 168 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. patron deities of scribes and of individuals to see how extensively not only Urn but other West Semitic deities were worshipped in the time of the First Dynasty (see Chapter VIII). The name of the counterpart of this deity at Babylon, namely Marduk, as well as other names of deities like Nergal, etc., who were regarded as sun-gods, considered in connection with the Aramaic form of the name 'Uru OWj also the Talmudic word for ''sunset" {^uria), as well as other considerations, made it seem that the god Amurru was a solar deity {Amurru 100 if.). How- ever, it must be admitted that the West Semitic deity, Amurru or Uru, regarded as the original deity from whom the others evolved, was primarily a storm-deity in the land where he was indigenous. This is determined by the syllabaries, where his name is so often equated with Adad. Transference of the deity from his original mountainous home to the fertile plain between the rivers, where the inhabitants were dependent upon agriculture, was probably responsible for the solar traits that were assumed. Anu and Antu, the writer has suggested, contrary to the accepted opinion that they were Babylonian or originally Sumerian, had their origin among the Western Semites (see Amurru p. 142). A number of considerations lead to this conclusion, among which are the following. The name Anna or Ana very probably is found in the personal names of Chaldeans who made revelations at the time the tradi- tional dynasty of Aloros ruled (see Chapter VIII) ; the second revelation was by AvvtjSwtos, the third by Avrjfievro^ etc., and the fourth by 'Av(a8a(f>o<;. The temple of Ashur erected or restored about 2400 B. C. was built in honor of the gods Anu and Adad, the latter being a West Semitic deity; and as Assyria was not settled by Babylonians as heretofore held (see Chapter XVI), but by people from the lands lying west of the country, it seems reasonable to infer that the former was also West Semitic. Anu also figures in certain inscrip- tions of Assyrian kings prominently associated with Dagan, another West Semitic deity. Anu and Dagan are addressed in the prayer of Ashurbanipal (Craig Rel Texts II 21 : Rev. 2). The laws of Anu and Dagan are referred to by the Assyrian kings. Antu is well known in place names in Amurru. Anathoth, the XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 169 city where Jeremiah grew up, is a little distance to the north-east of Jerusalem. Beth-Anoth (Josh. 15: 59) is identified with Beit 'Ainun in the neighborhood of Bethzur. This may be the ancient shrine referred to as a city conquered by Seti I {BAR III, 114). Ramses II mentions a city on the mount of Beth-Anoth {BAR III 356). A city in Judah bearing the same name was also conquered by Sheshonk I {BAR IV, 762). Bethany (written in Syriac Beth *AnV ^<♦Jj; rV2 on the road to Jericho from Jerusalem, as well as Bethany beyond Jordan may also have been shrines of Anu. As heretofore suggested by Professor Montgomery (see Amurru p. 143), Anu may be found in the personal name 'Aner, written An-ram in the Samaritan Hebrew. 'Anath father of Shamgar (Josh. 3: 31) may be an abbreviated name which originally con- tained that of the goddess. Anu also figures in the nomenclature of the Cappadocian tablets, cf. Gimil-A-nim {RA VIII p. 149), Pi-sa-A-na, and [Id]-sa-A-na {Bahyloniaca VI p. 191, 7 : 11). The latter name appears in a tab- let referring to a decision rendered in the ^ 'house of the judgment of Ana," concerning some property belonging to the god. This shows that there was a temple of Anu in Cappadocia. The worship of Antu was carried comparatively early to Egypt. The priesthood of the goddess at Thebes is already mentioned in the time of Thutmose III. Ramses II gave his favorite daughter a name which meant * ' daughter of Anath. ' ' Since it has not been shown that Babylonian influence had been exerted upon Egypt in the early period, it must be assumed at least that the goddess was borrowed from the people of Amurru. What seems to be the most important centre of Anu and Antu worship is at 'Ana and 'Anatho on the Euphrates (see Chapter XI) ; and it is not improbable that from this quarter it was spread throughout the adjoining lands. Anu was carried to Erech in a very early period by the Semites ; for whom the temple called E-Anna was erected. Lugal-zaggisi, Gudea, and Ur-Engur, regarded him as the ''lord of lords." The Sumerians very probably adopted Anna as one of their deities. The goddess Antu, however, does not seem to have been introduced at Erech in the early period ; Ishtar appears as the consort of Anu. It would seem also that Lulubu was another city in which the wor- 170 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. ship of these deities had been introduced. In the inscription of Annu-banini of an early period, who had erected a statue to Ishtar in the mountain of Batir, the king invokes for it the protection of the gods Annu and Antu, Enlil and Ninlil, Adad and Ishtar, Sin and Shamash, etc. Anu was also early worshipped at Kish, another Semitic centre. It is to be noted that the name of Anu-mutabil, governor of the city of Der, who probably lived about the time of the First Dynasty, is also compounded with that of the deity. In connection with the question of the origin of the gods it must be regarded as significant that the worship of Antu was not intro- duced at Erech until the Greek period, and even then it does not appear in the nomenclature. Nor was the name introduced into Assyria; whereas in the broad expanse of Amurru and in Egypt we have so much evidence of it ; and where it left such an indelible impression. Anu has been regarded by scholars as being originally a sun- god whose great luminary was in the heavens, who became in the development of later theological systems the chief deity of the heavens. In Egypt the goddess is represented sitting upon a throne, with a feathered head-dress similar to the representations of Ashirta with whom she is often paired. She has a lance and a shield in her right hand and a battle-axe in the left ; or she is rep- resented as clad in a panther-skin. She is a warlike goddess and sensual; is called lady of heaven, daughter of the sun, etc. (Muller EM p. 156). Ashir, whose name is written in cuneiform A-sir, A-sa-ru-um, A-usar, A-sur, and As-sur, and in the West Semitic script ^LJ^N (also IDN) was in all probability of West Semitic origin {Amurru 138 ff.). This conclusion followed the consideration that the name did not appear in early Babylonian nomenclature and because of its prominence in the early Cappadocian tablets and in the Phoe- nician and Aramaic inscriptions. Further the name Ashirta appears to be the feminine of Ashir, even though Ashirta is in most cases written with ayin, while the few cases in which Ashir is found in the late Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions the name is written with aleph. If this is correct, the original habitat of Ashir it would seem was probably the same as Ashirta. XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMUREU. 171 An interesting confirmation of the assumption that the deity is West Semitic is the fact that Ashar is found in the Amorite Name Syllabary in the name Ia-[ku]-un-A-schru-um (TJMB8 XI 2 1 II : 6), and it is not found in the Akkadian. It is to be noted, however, that the deity is not found in the few known Hana tablets, or in the Harran Census. It is to be further noted that the feminine Ashirta or the Assyrian Ishtar do not figure prominently in these texts, occurring once in the names of the former, Idin-^RI, and a few times in the latter, which of course belong to the late Assyrian period. (See also Chapter X.) Ashur, whose symbol is the solar disc, seems to have been a sun- god, in Assyria. This is probably shown also by the name Asir- Samsi *'Ashir is Shamash, or *'Ashir is my sun," found in the Cappadocian tablets, and yet like Amurru he is also a mountain- god, cf. ^As-sur ilu si-ru a-si-ib E-har-sag-kur-lcur-ra '* Ashur the exalted god who dwells in Hhe temple of the mountain of the world' " (KTA 3, Rev. 23), and also Asur sadu rahu *' Ashur, the great mountain '^ (CT 26, 1: 11). His warlike attributes, which are pictured also in his emblem of the solar disc by the represen- tation of a warrior with an arrow, are well set forth in the passage *' Ashur the good one, strong warrior, mighty in battle, who burns up the enemy, thunders amongst his foes, who bursts forth like a flame of fire, who decides the battle, and like the snare or certain death is the onset of his arms" {AJSL 28 p. 186). Ashirta offers the most complicated and intricate of all problems in connection with the names of West Semitic deities, the reason being that her worship was spread throughout the Semitic world ; that in certain lands her sex was changed; and that her name appears in so many different forms. In inscriptions coming from Amurru her name appears in the name Abdi-Asirta in the Amarna letters, A-si-ir-ta and As-ra-tum{ti, to) ; in the Moabite inscription it is written 'strt-, and in the Phoenician inscriptions 'strh, 'strt, also 'srh and 'str (late). In one of the letters of Ashirti-washur found at Ta'anach, belonging to the Amarna period, the oracle of Ashirat is referred to.^ We learn that ''Solomon went after ^ See Hrozny Ta'mmek No. 1 : 21. Since the name of the deity of this 1T2 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians" (1 Kgs. 11: 5). In the peace treaty of Ramses II with the Hittites, Ashtart is looked upon as a goddess of that land. The deity also figures prominently in the West Semitic names of the Cappadocian tablets. Ashtaroth was the city of Og, king of Bashan (Deut. 1 : 14 ; Josh. 9: 10, etc.) Ashtaroth-Karnaim is mentioned in Gilead, as the place of Chedorlaomer's defeat of the Rephaim (Gen. 14: 5), Beeshtarah, the Levitical city in Manasseh (Josh. 21: 27) is regarded as Beth 'Ashtera ''Temple of Ashtera/' and is thought to he identical with Ashtaroth of 1 Ch. 6 : 71. Thutmose III refers to a Palestinian city 'Astiratu (Miiller AE 162, 313). '''As-tar-te is also mentioned in the Amarna tablets. In Jerome ^s Onomasticon, two forts bear this name, which are nine miles apart, lying between Adara and Abila. Ashtaroth the city of Og is placed six miles from Adara. Karnaim Ashtaroth, apparently the same as Ashtaroth-Karnaim, is said to be a town lying in the angle formed by the Nahr er-Raqqad and the Yarmuk, which apparently is represented to-day by Tell ' Ashtara about two miles south-east of El Merkez where the governor of the Hauran resides. Ashtaroth-Karnaim is also placed by some at Tell Ashary, a site about five miles south of Tell 'Ashtara. The worship of Ashirta was early introduced into Babylonia by the Semites who migrated there. The earliest name known to the writer that is compounded with it, is En-hi-As-tar, a pre-Sargonic ruler of Kish. The name in time was pronounced Ishtar in Baby- lonia and Assyria, although occasionally such West Semitic forms as As-tar-tu (time of Esarhaddon) are found. In the early Baby- lonian inscription of Anu-banini of Lulubu, Ishtar {'^RI) appears as the consort of '^IM. An inscription of Lugal-tar-si is dedicated to Anu and to '^Ninni which is a Sumerian name of Ishtar. As the consort of Marduk her name appears as Sarpanitum. She is also the consort of Ashur in Assyria, and of other gods, the explanation being that the name Ishtar in many instances had become the gen- eric name for ''goddess." She was also regarded as the daughter Amorite is written phonetically A-si-rat, it scarcely seems proper to read the ideogram ^BI in this name Ishtar, as has been done; and especially as we have no justification for this reading in any West Semitic inscription. XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMUBRU. 173 of Sin and Ann. (See Jastrow RBBA 105 ff.). A Babylonian hymn, rewritten in the Greek period, informs us that in her original home, where her name was Ashrat, and regarded as ^Hhe goddess of the plain," she was the consort of Amurru {^Mar-Tu-e), *'lord of the mountain" {SBE, 139: 143-5). A study of the epithets of the Babylonian Ishtar shows that she is credited with playing the role of most of the gods, besides being the mother goddess, the goddess of wedlock and maternity. She is regarded as being a storm and a war goddess ; as the giver of vegetation; she presides over rivers, canals, flocks, etc. She is identified with other goddesses, and in consequence partakes of their attributes, or those of their consorts. Like Aphrodite, in some parts of Babylonia, she was also recognized as a dissolute goddess, and prostitution was practiced in her name. The pas- sage Deut. 23 : 18 together with other evidences would seem to show that these immoral rites had been introduced from the West. The worship of Ashirta or 'Astarte was carried to Egypt where she was worshipped in the city Ramses and elsewhere. Her chief temple was at Memphis. In Egypt she was known as the goddess of war, of horses and the chariot. Anath and Astarte were ''the shields" of Ramses III {BAR IV: 105). Qedesh, perhaps another manifestation of 'Astarte, is pictured as a nude goddess standing on a lion^ holding flowers in one hand and a serpent in the other, and wearing the sun and moon on her head. 'Asit, who always rides on horseback, may be another form of Astarte (Muller EM p. 156). In Arabia the deity Athtar, regarded as the same as Ishtar, was recognized as masculine. Some scholars maintain that 'Attar or ' Atar ( ini^), who appears late in Aram, is a modification ; although this is by no means certain. On the Moabite stone (ninth century) 'Ashtar. is identified with Chemosh, and is also regarded by scholars as masculine. Many scholars hold that the original home of the goddess was in Babylonia. Barton and others regard it as fairly well established that Ishtar was a universal Semitic deity, but that Arabia is its home. "While it is one of those questions that cannot be deter- mined, and every one is entitled to his or her view, there is little question in the mind of the writer in the light of the above, that 174 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. this goddess emanated from Amurru; and very probably from Halab or Aleppo (see Chapter XII). Barton finds the origin of the name in the root 'tara, as a term connected with irrigation. Paton follows him and suggests that it applied to the numen of the spring and meant ''self waterer.^'^ There may be reasons based on the attributes of the god Athtar for this conception, but scarcely on those of Ashtaroth-Ishtar. There is no way of determining whether the view that Ashirta is the feminine of Ashir is correct, but it appears perfectly rea- sonable in spite of all the objections that have been raised. Meta- thesis could have taken place and Ashirta or Ashrat became Ashtar. Subsequently when the etymology had been lost sight of, the feminine ending could have been added, when Ashtar became Ashtartu. The place name Anathoth of the Old Testament would seem also to contain a double feminine ending. Such forms as qinnatdte, feminine plural of qinnu ''family," which occur in the Babylonian contract literature, must be explained in the same way. Ata or Atta was a West Semitic deity frequently found in the Aramaic inscriptions. It is found in a name in the Harran Census, A-ta-id-ri, and in A-ta-su-ri, 8a-hu-a-ta-a, etc., also in the Assyrian period. (See Tallqvist APN.) Attar or Atar, the deity of the Aramaeans, as mentioned above, is regarded by some scholars as identical with the Arabian Athtar and the Biblical Ashtart. In the Assyrian documents it is repre- sented in the names A-tar-bi-'-di, -kam-mu, -idri, -qdmu, -suri, (= li)t^^r\}^ ), Bir-A-tar, ^'^A-tar-ma-la-ahu, and in the Babylonian documents '^At-tar-nuri, A-tar-idri, A-tar-ri-El, etc. This deity's name, as is well known, is combined with Ate in the syncretistic name Atargatis (Hn^^nj^), the chief goddess of the Aramaeans, whose worship existed in the late period throughout Syria. Dagan, whose name is written Ba-gan, Ba-ga-an ( Amarna 317 : 2), Ba-gan-na, and Bchgu-na (Bezold Catalogue IV 1482), was wor- shipped in different parts of Amurru, but his original home seems to have been in the middle Mesopotamian region. As mentioned above. Chapter IX, about a dozen names in the few tablets dis- covered as coming from the kingdom of Hana are compounded ® See article ' ' Ishtar, ' ' Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. XVn. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 1T5 with that of Dagan, and a number bear the title 'Spriest of Dagan. '* In Tirqa, probably the chief city of Hana, Dagan was apparently the patron god. Shamshi-Adad, **king of Assyria, king of the universe," restored the temple of Dagan, and recorded himself as a worshipper of that god. The oath formulae of the contracts from that region show that the people swore by Shamash, Dagan, and Itur-Mer. The property recorded in one of the deeds is skid to be that of these three deities (see Chapter XI). In Canaan the deity was worshipped by the Philistines at Gaza (Judg. 16: 23), and at Ashdod (1 Sam. 5: 1). There was also a temple of Dagan near Joppa, which was probably Beth-Dagou (Josh. 15 : 41). This fane and its surroundings are represented by the present site Beit Dejan, about six miles south-east of that city. There is another Beit Dejan about six miles south-east of Nablus ; and Josephus mentions a fortress above Jericho called Dagon (Ant. XII 8:1). One of the writers of the Amarna tablets was a certain Dagan-takala. The personal name I-ti-Da-gan occurs in a tablet from Cappadocia (Bahyloniaca 1907 p. 19). Dagan was carried to Babylonia by the Semites at an early period. The first appearance in Babylonian literature is in per- sonal names of the time of Manishtusu. In the obelisk of that ruler several names are compounded with the name of the deity. Dungi, in his thirty-seventh year, dedicated a temple to Dagan. Two names of rulers of the Nisin Dynasty, which was founded by an Amorite from Mari, are compounded with the god's name; namely, Idin-Dagan and Ishme-Dagan. Hammurabi in his Code calls himself the warrior of Dagan. More than one early king of Assyria also bore the name Ishme-Dagan. Ashur-nasir-pal (883- 859 B. C), Shamshi-Adad (823-811 B. C), and other Assyrian kings claimed to be devotees of Anu and Dagan. There seems to be considerable difference of opinion concerning the nature of the god Dagan or Dagon."^ Since Dagan is equated with Enlil (CT 24 6 : 22 etc.), it seems reasonable to regard him as possessing similar attributes. Ea, as Chiera has proposed, is probably a West Semitic deity ■"For a full discussion on his nature, see Paton ''Dagon" in the Ency- clopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 176 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMOEITES. (UMB8 XI 1 39 f.). In the name syllabaries which he published, he finds Ann, Ea, and "^IM grouped together, and also Dagan, Ea, and Ishtar. In the Amorite syllabary he found El, Ea, and Ishtar grouped together. If his contention should prove correct, then very probably the three gods of the triad, Anu, Enlil, and Ea are Amorite. In the Cassite period the deity Ea-sharru occurs in personal names, as: Eri-ha-^E-a-sarri, Ih-ni-'^E-a-sarri, Nur-'^E-a-sarri, etc. This deity was worshipped at Calah, in which city Ashur-nasir-pal established an image of him. In the Amarna letters sent from Mitanni, Ea-sharru figures in two lists of deities : in one, Teshub, Shaushka, Amon, Shimike, and Ea-sharri; and in the other, Shi- mike, Amon, and Ea-sharri. Are we to see another syncretistic formation in this name? Shar, written Shar, Shar-ri, LUGAL, and HI in Hittite names, occurs frequently, as Ha-at-tu-Shar, Ah-li-ib-Shar-ri, It-hi-ib-Shar, etc. (see Clay PN p. 33). One feels inclined to inquire at least whether Shar was Semitic or Hittite (see under Shar below). En-lil, whose name was written with two Sumerian ideograms. En *4ord" and Lil ^' the storm," is considered by most scholars to be of Sumerian origin. The chief proof besides the Sumerian form of his name is found in Reissner SBH 13 : 1-7, where what are called EnliPs seven chief names are found. They are: Lord of the lands ; Lord of the living command, Divine Enlil ; Father of Sumer ; Shepherd of the dark-headed people ; Hero, who seest by thine own power ; Strong lord, directing mankind ; and Hero, who causest multitudes to repose in peace (see Jastrow RBBA p. 70). The argument for the Sumerian origin of this deity based upon this evidence can by no means be said to be conclusive. As the Babylonians adopted Adad and other deities, it is reasonable to suppose that the *^ black-headed" Sumerians may have adopted this deity. Further, the fact that his name is written in Sumerian is no more proof of its origin than that Ashratu, the consort of Amurru, was Sumerian, whose name was written Nin-gu-edin-na (Eme-sal: Gdsan-gu-edin-na) , ^*the lady of the plain." Originally Enlil was a storm deity, as his name implies. He was a god of the mountain. His temple was called E-kur, which means ^^ house of the mountain." His consort was designated Nin-har- XVn. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 177 sag, *4ady of the mountain/' He is called Shadu-rahu *' great mountain." When transferred to the alluvial plain Babylonia, where agriculture was extensively practiced, and which so greatly depended upon the winter rains, EnliL becomes a god of fertility or an agricultural deity. Primarily, however, he is a veritable Adad, for ^^he causes the heavens to tremble and the earth to quake.'' Moreover in the Sumerian hymn above referred to, there is no indi- cation of his original qualities, but the epithets reflect only a broader and more general character than had been assigned him in later times. Although Enlil was the chief patron deity of Nippur, in the Name Syllabaries of the time of the First Dynasty found in that city, his name occurs only twice, unless it is assumed, with Chiera {UMB8 XI 38 ff.), that it is represented by the ideogram ^IM. Instead of the later triad, Anu, Enlil, and Ea, there appears in the Semitic lists, the triad, Anu, Ea, and '^IM. As stated above, the attributes of the deity ^IM are identical with those of EnlU, the god of the storm and atmospheric conditions. - Gir was the name of a deity in the land of Amurru as well as the name of a country (see Chapter III). In the West Semitic inscrip- tions a number of names are compounded with the deity, as Gir- rnHki (*|'70")X '^DD^IJ, '^DH'^Xetc. See Cook North Semitic Inscrip- tions), which would show that his worship was continued up to a late period. But we are dependent largely upon evidence from Babylonian sources for the existence of this Amorite god. ^Gir sa hirqi ^^Gir of the lightning," sa sadi **of the mountains" is also identified with '^Kur-Gal {=Amurru), '^Mar-tu (^Amurru), and ^SAR-SAn (see CT 24 89-94). ^Glr is also identified with Nergal an importation from the West {CT 25 50: 15). The sign is also found in the ideographic writing of his name. ^GIR-GIR-u='^lM {CT 25 17: 31). '^Sar-ra-pu=^Sar-gir-ra Mar^' i. e. ''Shar-Girra of Amurru {CT 25 35 : 24) is another syncretistic formation. Line 26 of the same text reads Sar-Gir-ra-Su^\ The element appears in the name Nin-Gir-Zu (or Su) also written Nin-Zu-Gir, the deity of Tello, who is identified with the West Semitic In-Urta. In this connection it is natural to think also of the deity En-Gur, in the name of the founder of the Ur Dynasty, since the change from Gar to Gor (written Gur) offers no difficulty. The comparison is at 178 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. least inviting because of other rulers of this dynasty bearing Semi- tic names. Even Dun-gi is not the pronunciation of the second ruler's name as shown by the complement ra in the Sumerian name ^Dun-Gi-ra-halam-wa, and perhaps others. It is not improbable that these Sumerian forms represent Semitic names. Since the phonetic change of g into m is well established in Sumerian, the latter being the Eme-sal for the former, and as so many cuneiform signs beginning with m also appear with g, the question arises whether it may not be possible that Gir and Mar are dialectically connected even in names found in the West. It is to be noted also that GIR has the reading 8u-mu-qa-an, 8u-mu-ug-ga, and SaTc-kan (CT 29 46: 8, 9) ; also Sa-kan (CT 12 3j). This may be found in the West Semitic name Gir-sakan ( pD")Jl), perhaps a name formation like Gir-Ba' al {by'^Tsy) and Gir-'Ashteroth ( n*)nC^j;n;i ) . Note also the formula GIR = dumu '^Bahhar-ge=^ su-rn^^-Q<^-'^»GiR, CT 24 32: 112. Hani occurs in several names found on Babylonian tablets, cf. UR-^Ha-ni, Gal-^Ha-m, etc., of the Ur Dynasty; '^Ha-ni-ra-hi and Awil-'^Ha-m of the First Dynasty; and Ha-ni-he-el- gas-si of the Cassite period, etc. In the Harran Census the names Ha-an-da-di, Ha-an-su-ri, and Bir-Ha-a-nu occur, which would seem to associate the deity with that part of the region. Hani bears the title he-lum ku-nu-uk ''lord of the seal" (SBH 50 : 8) ; and also is called ilu sa dupsarruti ' ' the god of the scribes ' ' (Shurpu II: 175). He together with Nisaba his consort are cred- ited with being the givers of the most ancient laws now known (see Chapter XI). Lahmu and Lahamu. The only trace of the worship of Lahmu in the West is in the well known place name Beth-Lehem in Judah, and also in Zebulun, now represented by Bet Lahm, about seven miles north-west of Nazareth. These deities figure prominently in the Marduk-Tiamat creation legend, which as previously shown also emanated from the West (see Amurru 44 ff.). The names of the deities do not seem to have been used in the composition of names by the Babylonians and Assyrians. In fact besides the creation legend adopted by the Assyrians, in which the names occur, they are only found in late Syllabaries, where they are des- XVII. THE DEITIES OF AMURRU. 179 ignated as god and goddess (anum and antum) ; see Deimel Pan- theon Babylonicum p. 162, Mardnk has been regarded as being the contracted pronunciation of a syncretized name Amar-Utug, combining the West Semitic god Amar or Amur with Utug. The basis for this assumption is the formula Amar-Utug = ^A-ma-ru (B. 11566), the personal name U-ri-Marduh of the Cassite period (Clay PN), together with the fact that the Marduk-Tiamat myth is West Semitic. If the name Marduk originated in Babylon in this way it should not be found in the West, except through influence from Babylonia. The fact is there is an almost complete absence of the use of the name in the West, in spite of the claims of the Pan-Babylonists that the Canaanitic civilization was imported from Babylonia. Marduk was the local god of Babylon. As the city is scarcely mentioned in the inscriptions prior to the First Dynasty, neither is the name of Marduk. Even in the Name Syllabaries of that period it does not occur. But with the ascendancy of Babylon under Hammurabi he became the chief god of the pantheon, when he supplanted all other gods. The nomenclature thereafter of all the Babylonian cities showed the extensive influence of his worship. And as is known, Babylon continued to be the centre of the hege- mony established by Hammurabi for nearly two thousand years. Mash was the name of a deity in Amurru as well as the name of a country and a mountain. There was also a city named Z"i-Ma5/i ** place of Mash" (see Chapter XII). Although the god has not been heretofore recognized in the West, it would seem that his name is probably compounded in that of a hero in David's time, Mash-mannah (1 Chron. 12: 10) ; in Mish-*am (D)^J^O), a name in Benjamin (1 Chron. 8: 12) ; and in the gentilic name Mishraites (^^^ti^O, 1 Chron. 2: 53). In Amurru it was conjectured that per- haps in the absence of any etymological explanation of Shamash, it may have been from i^a Mash **(the god) of Mash," like the^ Arabic Dhu'l Shard etc., in other words that the mountain Mashu was his habitat (see Amurru p. 127). The consort of Mash was Mashtu. They are called the children of the god Sin (Amurru p. 200). Mash is also a name of the god •^Nin-IB; the sign MASH is used interchangeably with '^Nin-IB. 180 THE EMPIRE OP THE AMORITES. The Aramaic equivalent, ^tJ'1^^^. for the name, found on the busi- ness documents of Murashu Sons seemed to point to the reading En-Mashtu as the god's name. En-Ushtu is also possible, which could be from En-Urta or In-Urta. It was also contended in Amurru (p. 78,* and MI 1 fp.) that the deity Mash was carried by the Semites to Babylonia at a very early time. In the first three dynasties, Kesh, Erech, and Ur, names compounded with the deity Mash or Mesh priedominate. Espe- cially at Erech in the early period do we find evidence of the wor- ship of this deity. Some have translated this element as meaning ^'hero,'' as for example the name Mes-ki-ag-nun-na is said to mean **the hero the beloved of the highest.'' Bather does it mean **Mesh is the beloved of the great one," or **Mesh is the great beloved." Names setting forth the hero character of individuals were not given at birth ; and we have no reason for believing that they are titles. (See the discussion on the name Gilgamesh Chap- ter VIII.) The early passage, reading galu '^Mes sangu Unu(g)^^- ga ''man of the god Mesh, the priest of Erech" {BE 2 87 1: 30) ; the early seal reading Nin-Unug^^ en Mes e Uwug^'' ''Nin-Uruk, high priest of the god Mesh, in the temple of Erech" {Collection de Clercq 83), the personal names Ur-Mesh dumu Lu-Unug^* ''Ur- Mesh, son of Awil-Uruk {RA VIII p. 31), show conclusively that a deity Mesh was worshipped in Erech (see Misc. Insc. p. 3). The character of the deity may probably be inferred from the syncretistic formation U'rw""'" '"''■'^Mas {CT 24 10: 8); in other words that Mash was a deity similar to the mountain or storm- deity Uru. The association of the god with the mountain Mashu, as above, would seem to support this view. This is confirmed in another way. The god Nergal is a transformed Uru from the West. Another name of Nergal is Mesh-Lam-Ta-e *'Mesh sends forth the sprout," and this deity is from Amurru (see below under Nergal). Mash, Mesh, and Mish are also elements that figure prominently in the temple names of Nineveh, Cutha, and Akkad. Nabu is also regarded by the writer as being of West Semitic origin {Amurru p. 144). The fact that his name figures promi- nently m the nomenclature of West Semitic peoples; and that there was a city Nebo in Moab (Numb. 32: 3, 38), probably near Mt. Nebo, the place of Moses' death (Numb. 33: 47), as well as a XVn. THE DEITIES OF AMUREU. 181 city in Judali by that name (Ezr. 2: 29), make it appear highly probable that the original home of the deity was in Amurru. What is especially confirmatory of this conjecture is the fact that in the Akkadian Name Syllabary from Nippur of the period of Hammu- rabi the name does not appear ; but in the Amorite Syllabary the name I-zi-Nor-hu-u is found. Owing to the great ingress of Amor- ites in this period some names are compounded with that of Nabu. The deity also received recognition on the part of the kings. In Hammurabi *s reign, **Ezida the beloved temple of Nabu^' is cared for. The date for his sixteenth year reads : * * The year in which the throne of Nabu was built. ' ' See also the twenty-seventh year of Ammi-ditana (LIE III 193, 235, and 250). Earlier than this, we have no knowledge that the deity was recognized. At any time, however, the antiquity of his shrine may be shown to be much greater. Nashhu or Nashuh is a deity found frequently in names of the Harran t^ensus, as Nashhu-gabri, etc. This form occurs rarely outside of these tablets (see Tallqvist APN). In the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal the fire-god Nusku is fre- quently referred to. This king restored his temple, E-melam-anna in Harran. Prom his texts also we learn that he is closely related to Sin, Girru, In-Urta, and Nergal.^ These are West Semitic gods. His consort's name is Sadarnunna. In publishing the tablets of the Harran Census, Johns proposed that Nusku was very likely a Syrian god originally, and that his name in the Census appears Nashhu. This being correct Nashhu doubtless more correctly rep- resents the actual pronunciation of his name in his original habitat. At an early date the worship of this West Semitic deity was intro- duced at Nippur, where his name was written Nusku. Nergal is another name which like Marduk is a contracted pro- nunciation of the ideographic writing Ne-Uru-Gal; and was also an importation from the West {Amurru 114 if.). Other names of this deity are Sar-Girra, Mes-Lam-Ta-e, etc. These two gods are said to have come from Mar** (Amurru, or Mari), and from Su^\ which is a district in Mesopotamia (CT 25 35: 24-26). The name ^Mes-Lam-Ta-e probably means 'Hhe god Mesh sends forth fruit « See Streck YB VII 3 p. 762 and Tallqvist AFN p. 259. 182 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. (or the sprout)/' The habitat of Mesh or Mash, who is thus regarded as identical with Nergal, as noted above, is the mountain Mash. Like the contracted pronunciation Marduk, which also arose in Babylonia, the form Nergal was not used in the West prior to the exile, with one exception, which occurs on a seal found at Ta'anach; the inscription of which reads: A-ta-na-ah-ili (NI-NI) apil Ha-ah-si-im arad Ne-Uru-Gal * ' Atanah-ili, son of Habsim, servant of Nergal.'' The seal was unquestionably of Western origin, but the script is Babylonian. Whether the ideogram Ne-Uru-Gal was read or pronounced Nergal in this instance, or whether it was simply employed to rep- resent the name of some god worshipped in Palestine, perhaps Gir, Mash, Uru, etc., cannot be determined. It should be empha- sized that this is the only known use of the name in the early period, when according to the Pan-Babylonists the civilization of Palestine is supposed to be essentially Babylonian. Resheph ' 'lightning," * Aflame," the lord of heaven, lord of eter- nity and ruler of the gods, the warrior, is well known from the late Aramaic inscriptions of northern Syria. As far as known to the writer, this deity is not mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions. He figures, however, in Egypt, where he is depicted wearing a high conical cap, to which often is tied a long ribbon falling over his back, and which is ornamented with the head of a gazelle. He car- ries a shield, spear, club, and sometimes a quiver on his back. In one inscription he is called Reshpu-Saramana, a syncretistic form which may mean that he is identified with the god Shalman. Together with Min (a harvest deity) and Qedesh, Resheph forms a triad in Egypt (see MtQler EM p. 155). Shamash, in the Amarna letters, is looked upon as the leading deity of the Amorites. It may be due to the fact that the chief deity of Egypt, Amon-Re, was solar, that he occupied such a promi- nent place in the salutations of the Amorite princes to the Pharaoh, in which he is called * * my Shamash, my god, my lord. ' ' The place name Beth-Shemesh near Gaza, perhaps the personal name Shimshon (Samson), as well as names found in the Cappado- cian tablets, show how widespread was his worship. An important centre of Shamash worship was found in the Mesopotamian dis- trict, where he was the foremost of the triad who were invoked in XVII. THE DEITIES OP AMUERU. 183 the oath formulae of the Hana contracts: Shamash, Dagan, and Itur-Mer (see Chapter XI). At an early period the Semites car- ried his worship into Babylonia, where in the cities Sippar and Larsa he became the patron deity. He is perhaps the best known god in the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheons. The deity Shamash was early carried to Arabia, and looked upon as a goddess. Winckler held the view that the deity was consid- ered feminine also in early Hittite groups.^ As mentioned above, the name found in the Nippur Name Syllabary, Tu-li-id-'^Sam- si(-si), shows that the deity here was construed as feminine. (See also under Mash.) Sharu. There is a god Sharu that has figured very prominently among the Semites in Amurru and Babylonia, as well as in other lands. An important centre of his worship was at Umma, in Baby- lonia, at present called Jokha. His name in this region was written with the ideogram lagab with igi-gunu inserted, the correct reading for which, namely Shara, is made known by the Yale Sylla- bary (MI 53 : 111). As in the case of the god Uru or Amurru (see Chapter VII), other signs having values pronounced like Shara, Sharru, etc., without regard for the meaning of the signs, were also employed by the scribes to reproduce the pronunciation of the name, as : IM meaning ''wind"; BAR A meaning ''shrine"; MARUN meaning "court, fold, sheep, "^" HI meaning "mass, totality"; LC/'(7^L meaning "king"; AGAR meaning "field," SHAR mean- ing "vegetable growth"; etc., all these signs having values pronounced like Shar, Shara, Sharru, were used by the scribes to reproduce the sound of the deity's name, who had been introduced in Babylonia from the West. With this practice of the ancient scribes, Langdon by his criticism and assertions apparently does not seem to be acquainted [RA 13 p. 161). * See Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft No. 35 p. 53. ^' MABTJN = sara Yale Syllabary No. 112, MI; AGAR = sara, ibid. No. 111. 184 THE EMPIRE OF THE AMORITES. The name is also written phonetically Sha-ra, Sha-a-ru, Shar-ru, Shar-ra, Shar-ri, etc. Perhaps also Sheru, or Sher^^ is to be included as represented in West Semitic names, as Se-ir-id-ri, Ser- ila-a-a, etc. (see Tallqvist APN) ; and probably also Du^l Shara, the god of the Nabataeans. It is not impossible that many of the names of deities composed of LUGAL and other elements are Semitic in a Sumerian dress ; and that this ideogram is to be read Shara, like ^E-a-a-sar-ri of the Amarna letters, which is usually written ^E-a-LUGAL (see under Ea). Sharu appears especially in names of the early Babylonian periods, see Sdr-ru-ha-ni, Sdr-ru-tdh, etc., and probably in the names §ar-ga-ni-Sdr-ri and Bi-in-ga-m-Sdr-ri (BA VI 3 85 ff.). In the Ur Dynasty many names are compounded with the deity. For other compounds in which Shar appears as an element in names of temples and deities, see the writer ^s Misc. Inscr. p. 15. A large number of personal names among the Hittite-Mitannian are constituted with a god Shar, cf. Ha-at-tu-Sar, Ah-li-ib-Sar-ri, It-hi-ih-Sar, etc. (see Clay PN). Note also the names with Shara, which are probably from the same source, which have been col- lected by Sundwall Klio 1913, Elf tes Beihef 1 190 if. Naturally the question arises whether this deity is the same ; and if so with which people, the Semitic or Hittite, did his worship originate. If they have a common origin, it seems probable that the Hittites may have borrowed the deity from the Semites; as is clearly evident they did in several other instances. The Syllabaries associate the god Shara with Adad, Gir, Mur, Ilu-Mer, Nergal, In-Urta, etc., which shows that he was regarded as similar in character. This would seem to indicate that he was a solar or storm-god. The idea that he was *'a vegetation god'' or *Hhe god of flocks," which Langdon has proposed (RA 13, 161), seems to be justified alone by the employment of two of the signs used to reproduce the pronunciation of his name (see above). To differentiate between deities as being solar-gods, vegetation-gods or storm-gods is more or less artificial, since vegetation is depen- ^^ Cf. Ser = etillu (B. 4306), a meaning the sign received perhaps like the Aramaic Mar ' ' lord ' ' from the name of the deity Mar. XVn. THE DEITIES OF AMURBU. 185 dent upon the sun and the rains. Moreover, solar-deities are also vegetation-gods. Sin was the chief deity of Harran, whence apparently his wor- ship emanated at an early time. The Assyrian scribes who made the Harran Census in the seventh century wrote the name Si-', showing that they heard a pronunciation of the name in that dis- trict which was different from that of their own god Sin. (See Chapter XI.) If the eighth name of Berossus's antediluvian kings, ^AfjL€fiLvo