About B.C. 2100 Northern Babylonia was occupied by a dynasty
of kings, whose names show that they belonged to the Western division
of the Semitic family. The language of Canaan--better known to us as
Hebrew--and that of Southern and North-eastern Arabia, were at the time
substantially one and the same, and as the same deities were worshipped
and the same ancestors were claimed throughout this portion of the
Semitic world, Assyriologists are not agreed as to whether the dynasty
in question should be regarded as coming from Canaan or from Southern
Arabia. The Babylonians themselves called the names Amorite, so it is
possible that they would have pronounced the kings to have been Amorite
also. The point, however, is of little moment; the fact remains that
Northern Babylonia passed under the rule of sovereigns who belonged to
the Western and not to the Babylonian branch of the Semitic race, and
who made Babylon their capital. The contract tablets and other legal
documents of this period show that Babylonia was at the time full of
Amorite, that is Canaanite, settlers, most of whom had come there for
the sake of trade. At Sippara there was a district called “the field
of the Amorites,” over which, therefore, they must have had full legal
rights. Indeed, it would seem that in the eyes of the law the Amorite
settlers were on a complete footing of equality with the natives of the
country.
This fact, so little in harmony with our ordinary idea of the
exclusiveness of the ancient East, is largely explained by the further
fact that Canaan and Syria were now acknowledged portions of the
Babylonian Empire. When Babylonia was conquered by the Elamites,
and the West Semitic king of Babylon allowed to retain his crown as
an Elamite vassal, his claim to rule over “the land of the Amorites”
passed naturally to his suzerain. Accordingly we find Chedor-laomer
of Elam in the Book of Genesis marching to Canaan to put down a local
rebellion there, while Eri-Aku, or Arioch, of Larsa, at the same date
describes an Elamite prince as “governor of the land of the Amorites.”
When Khammu-rabi, or Amraphel, the king of Babylon, at last succeeded
in shaking off the Elamite yoke and making himself monarch of a
free and united Babylonia, “the land of the Amorites” followed the
fortunes of Babylonia as a matter of course. On a monument discovered
at Diarbekir, in Northern Mesopotamia, the only title taken by the
Babylonian sovereign is that of “king of the land of the Amorites.”
And the same title is borne by one at least of his successors in the
dynasty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account