Page images

due to say that he has opened new windows into the dimly seen and darkly understood lands of Western Asia as the early kingdoms were founded. He has not demonstrated the existence of an empire (on this see the Foreword), but of an influence, and that is quite enough."19 There has, however, appeared more recently what is even more decided in character.

Professor Ungnad of Breslau, in a brochure which has just appeared, now fully admits corroboration of my basic position. He writes that the Arabian and African origin of the Semites is becoming more and more improbable as investigations advance; that the Semites were already in Syria, 4500 B. C.; that it was a highly cultivated land; that the Semitic Babylonians came from Amurru; that the great Amorite Empire, which the Semites had created, had been destroyed by the Hittites and Egyptians; and that the Amorites very probably had an alphabetic script long before the earliest that is known.20 It is needless to say that this is in complete accord with what I have been maintaining as regards the early history and civilization of the Amorites.

If these points bearing on the great antiquity of the Amorite civilization are generally acknowledged—and they will be, for the proof has already been presented—I feel that the foundation upon which my entire structure rests is established. This is, therefore, an all-important gain; for without it, or rather the evidence upon which it is based, an early civilization would have to be postulated for Syria, out of which emanated the influences which were exerted upon Babylonia and Egypt. This is now unnecessary. Moreover, with this historical background established, I hope in the present monograph to force many vital conclusions with reference to the origin of religious and cultural elements that found their way into Babylonia; among which are the creation and deluge stories.

10 Rogers, American Historical Review 25, 700 ff.
30 Ungnad, Die ältesten Völkerwanderungen Vorderasiens.

In doing so, I realize that I shall have many hands against me. To inform the teacher that the views which he has taught, and which his student has accepted, should be abandoned, or reversed, is not likely to be hailed with delight. This, nevertheless, must follow; for I believe that I can now present the problem in such a way that all, even those who have not studied Assyriology, can judge for themselves the merits of the position which is now so generally accepted, as well as what is here proposed: namely, its abandonment.

If what the lone Assyriologist here presents is not effective in certain quarters, there will be no disappointment. It is a great deal to expect scholars to nullify what they have written, covering in some instances many decades, as long as there is anything to which they can cling. I am thoroughly convinced, however, that in time even their opposition will take care of itself; for in the pages which follow there is more than sufficient evidence, not only to show that their position is baseless, but to establish the thesis that Amurru is the home of the traditions that we will discuss.

In the course of the discussions under the various topics, I will give the criticisms that scholars have already made of my previous efforts, even some from an aggressive source that do not merit any notice. In presenting hundreds of facts and details, there naturally is plenty of room for slips. A few of these which I have discovered, or to which attention has been called, are cheerfully acknowledged. But let me add here that I know of no criticism of a vital character that has been made, thus far, which has not been, or is not here fully answered.



In discussing the problem of the origin of traditions handed down by Israel and the Babylonians, the arguments are grouped under four heads, bearing upon migrations, climate, names, and linguistic evidence.

The first argument I desire to use in establishing my thesis is based on a study of invasions or conquests and migrations, and what their respective bearing is in connection with the cultural and religious influences of the one nation upon the other. This study I feel will be found to have a most important bearing in the solution of the whole problem before us, especially in view of the proof that for years has been offered for the Babylonian origin of the stories in Genesis, and of Israel's culture and religion in general, as well as for the claim that before Israel entered Canaan it was a domain of Babylonian civilization. With that in view we will briefly review what is at present known concerning the conquests or invasions and migrations emanating not only from Syria and Babylonia, but also from Egypt; because, like Babylonia, Egypt is a great alluvium which has been closely connected with Syria.

There were other peoples who played a rôle in the politics of the Near East in the early period, as the Elamites, Hittites, etc., but having rather meagre knowledge of their history and religion, as well as for other reasons, we will confine the survey to the three nations mentioned.

From a study of the movements of nations in antiquity, it seems to the writer that the following two principles can reasonably be laid down. First, while the conquering invader leaves such evidence of his presence in the land as victory steles, material objects,

social and linguistic influences, his influence upon the religion of the land is either exceedingly meagre, or nil. Secondly, when migrations take place, including also the exiling or enslaving of peoples, the religion and culture of the people migrate with them; and their influence is found in the land to which they go.

Let us now take a survey of the conquests or invasions and migrations as well as other related influences under the following heads: first, Egyptian conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Amurru; secondly, Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Egypt; thirdly, Babylonian conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Amurru; fourthly, Amorite conquests or invasions of, and migrations to, Babylonia.

EGYPTIAN CONQUESTS OF AMURRU No references are made in the Egyptian inscriptions to contact with the Amorites in the earliest period. About 3000 B. C., the city of Byblos in Phoenicia is mentioned in the Pyramid texts. The reports concerning the excavations recently conducted at that city by the French offer interesting confirmation of these references; for we are informed that inscriptions have been found there belonging to the early period, including those of Mycerinus, Unas, and Phiops I., and that an Egyptian temple was erected there at a very early time.1

The first known Egyptian campaign to Asia was in the reign of Athothis, about 2900 B. C. Snefru, of the Third dynasty, mentions bringing to Egypt forty shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Sahure of the Fifth dynasty (about 2735 B. C.), sent a fleet against the Phoenician coast. At Abushir, a relief has been discovered showing four ships filled with Amorite prisoners, also from the Phoenician coast. Uni of the Sixth dynasty, invaded the land.

· Montet, Syria II 333 ff.
See Borchardt, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 17, 342 ff.

We have a tale of an adventure in Amurru by one named Sinuhe, in the time of Sesostris I. In the reign of Sesostris III (1887–1849 B. C.), a district called Sekmen, perhaps Shechem in Palestine, was pillaged. Ahmose I, Thutmose I, and Thutmose II also invaded Syria. Thutmose III, as is so well known, completely subjugated the land, and brought it under the control of Egypt. His successors lost it to the Hittites and the Habiri in the time of Amenhotep IV. The operations of Seti I, Rameses II, Merneptah, Sheshonk, Necho, and others in Palestine and Syria, are well known.

The social and political influences exerted by Egypt upon Amurru, as determined by excavations, are shown by such archaeological evidences of their presence in the land as victory steles, scarabs, pottery, etc. These have been found in practically every site that has been excavated in Palestine. One needs only to examine the collections of Palestinian antiquities in Jerusalem, Constantinople, and elsewhere, to be fully convinced of this fact. However, it is to such political or cultural matters that Egyptian influence is confined.

Besides these expeditions to Syria and the conquest of that country, and the establishing of a temple at Byblos, we know of the missionary efforts to establish the worship of Amen in that land. Thutmose III dedicated three cities to that deity in the Lebanon district; Seti I set up his own statue in Bashan, representing himself as offering a libation to Amen. Rameses III also dedicated cities in Syria to Amen-Re, and built a shrine for his worship in Canaan. At the time of the Egyptian supremacy in the land, if the local ruler refused to sacrifice to the Egyptian gods, it was a sign of open revolt. Although the expressed devotion to "the sun" in the Amarna letters retained the Amorite name of Shamash, it was nevertheless intended to show obeisance to the Egyptian god. Such facts show us that rulers doubtless officially sacrificed to Amen. Even the people were taxed to support the shrines that had been established. The story of Wenamon (about

« PreviousContinue »