flooded, which were followed by spring, when life again appeared. Likewise the theory of the Babylonian origin of the deluge story has for its basis the idea of "the yearly phenomenon of the rainy and stormy season, which lasts in Babylonia for several months, during which time whole districts in the Euphrates valley are submerged." In the chapters which follow I shall show that these theories, which are so vital to the position of the Babylonist, are based on a complete misunderstanding of climatic conditions in Babylonia. Moreover, I think it can be conclusively shown that the force in nature which is said to have given rise to these stories, reflects not the climate of Babylonia, but that of Amurru.

The third argument I propose using in establishing my thesis is based on the study of the names of deities and persons found in the texts involved. This, in my judgment, is perhaps the most important of the four arguments used. Having already assembled in publications perhaps twenty-five thousand names, gathered from the nomenclature of the cuneiform tablets covering several millenniums, it is possible from a study of them to ascertain influences, as well as migrations, that have taken place, in a most remarkable manner. On a basis of the study of the foreign names in the nomenclature of Babylonia, without any other data, it would be possible to reconstruct considerable history of the movements of ancient peoples into that land.

In the earliest dynastic lists now known, we find Amorites and other foreign peoples ruling Babylonia. In the collection of names belonging to the Akkad and Ur dynasties, as we have seen, we find large numbers of Amorite and other foreign names.

In the Nisin

"See Dhorme, Bei. zur Assyr. VI 2, 63 ff.; Huber, Personennamen; Ranke, Early Babylonian Personal Names; Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period; Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names; Tallqvist, Neobabylonisches Namenbuch; and the indices to many volumes of texts.

Larsa-Babylon contemporaneous dynasties, there is a great influx of Western Semites. In the Cassite period (1700-1200 B. C.), these are reduced to a minimum, but in place of them we find the nomenclature full of Cassite and Hittite-Mitannian names. In the NeoBabylonian period we find hundreds of Jewish names; in the Persian period these have greatly multiplied, when large numbers of Persian names are found, including many Egyptian. In the Greek period, many Greek names are found.

We know that the Amorites subjugated Babylonia; that the Hittites invaded it; that the Cassites, Persians, and Greeks in certain periods also ruled the land, and that the Jews were carried into exile to Babylonia. The nomenclature reflects all these movements, and corroborates perfectly the historical data which have already come to light.

In the previous chapter we have seen the importance of such studies, how when, following the discovery that the name Amurru was written 'wr (Úru) in Aramaic, it was conjectured on the basis of this, as well as the study of the names of the Nisin dynasty, that the dynasty was Amorite; which has since been definitely corroborated.

Another instance that might be cited as regards the importance of these studies is the bearing that a single name often has which occurs in a text. For example, in the well-known Gilgamesh epic the hero fights an enemy in the cedar forests, who was called Humbaba, which name is also written Hubaba. The scenes of this conflict have for years been placed in Elam, not because we know that a single cedar tree ever grew there, but because of the resemblance of the name Humbaba to that of the Elamite god Humba, which is variously written, as Humman, Humba, Humban, Umman, Umba, etc. It will be noticed that in no instance is there a reduplication of the consonant b in the god's name, as in Humbaba. Upon this identification, emphasis also was placed upon the epic

being based upon a myth, being in part astral, it was said, and in part a nature-myth.

Scholars years ago called attention to a name which closely resembled it, found in a legend of Lucian, concerning the building of the temple at Hierapolis, which was in the land where cedars grew; but nevertheless scholars continued to identify the character as an Elamite god.

The recent discovery of the name written Huwawa on the early version of the epic found in the Yale Collection; the recent discovery also that Humbaba was a usurper who had humiliated Babylonia, as determined from an omen text in the Pierpont Morgan Collection; and the occurrence of the name in the Amorite Name Syllabary found at Nippur, have now definitely established the fact that Humbaba was an Amorite king whose palace was in the cedar forests of Lebanon.36

I have cited this instance to show how important is the correct identification of a single name in a legend; for in many publications Humbaba is regarded as a god of Elam, where cedar forests are supposed to have grown; all of which was based upon this identification, which is now proved incorrect. Naturally if an ancient legend were discovered and it contained but a single name, say for example Agamemnon, unless there was scenery that unquestionably reflected another land, scholars would have little hesitation in giving their view of its origin. In using this argument based on the study of names in connection with the creation and deluge stories, I might add that it will be seen that conclusions rest not upon a single name, but upon many.

The fourth argument that I wish to use in my efforts to prove the Amorite origin of these stories is based on a study of certain

"See Empire of the Amorites 87 f; Jastrow-Clay, An Early Version of the Gilgamesh Epic p. 23; and A Hebrew Deluge Story 49 f.

literary and linguistic evidence found in them. I fully appreciate that here there will be a difference of opinion expressed. This will largely arise from the fact that my point of view is totally different from that of most Assyriologists as regards the relative position of the Babylonian language in the Semitic group.

The prevailing view is that the Babylonian or Akkadian language antedates the Amorite group (i. e., Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic) by many centuries; and that, generally speaking, when these languages have words in common with the Babylonian, especially when they are not found in Arabic, they have had their origin in Babylonia. This understanding is due to a number of reasons.

Arabia, as already stated, is considered by these scholars to be "the home of the Semites," and its language is the source of all in the Semitic group. Syria and Palestine received their first Semitic peoples from Arabia about 2500 B. C. The civilization of Syria and Palestine was therefore of comparatively late development, and was extensively influenced by the Babylonian.

My own understanding of the situation is totally different. The cradle of the Semites may have rocked in Arabia; this may even have occurred at the North Pole, where some Indo-European scholars think Aryan had its origin. I only know that it is now proved that the antiquity of the civilization of Amurru synchronizes with the earliest found in Egypt and Babylonia. I believe that excavations in Syria will reveal the fact that its civilization greatly antedated that of Egypt and Babylonia. Further, I know that there is no basis for the Arabian wave theory of migrations to account for the Semitic inhabitants of Amurru and Babylonia; and I believe, as already mentioned, that Amorites, who as we definitely know did migrate in all early periods into the Babylonian alluvium, furnished it with its Semitic inhabitants. Doubtless many Arabs also trekked in from the desert at the same time; but of this we have no evidence. Further, I believe that what we call Semitic

Babylonian is a dialect of the Amorite language under the influence of the Sumerians, who introduced their script in the land, and who are probably responsible for many of the grammatical peculiarities of the Babylonian language. In other words, I believe that the Babylonian is a broken down Amorite language which in all periods, due to migrations, was influenced by the mother tongue.

To give here all my reasons for this understanding of the language, is impossible, and also unnecessary. I have simple given my view of the origin of the language for the purpose of showing why scholars will differ, at least as regards some of the linguistic evidence which I propose to offer for the Amorite origin of the creation and deluge stories. I shall give some examples, however, which are beyond any cavil; but until the relation of the Hebrew and Babylonian languages is viewed differently than it is at present, it is expected that many will refuse to accept the conclusion that a word is foreign when it has been met with in Babylonian literature, even if it is well known in the Amorite group. It does not matter to them whether it is obsolete, or it is alone found in a list of words where it is explained by a well-known Babylonian word. Nor does it matter whether the root of the word has a wide extended use in Hebrew or Aramaic, and is not found in Babylonian, except in the text of the story under consideration. Fortunately I can produce some linguistic and some literary evidences which lie beyond the possibility of such opposition.