KUR MAR-TU KIšad A-mur-ri-eMountain of Amoria (the Amorite land).
KUR TI-ID-NU-UM KIšad A-mur-ri-eMountain of Amoria.
KUR GIR-GIR KIšad A-mur-ri-eMountain of Amoria.
KUR SU-RU KIšad Su-bar-tiMountain of Subarti.
KUR NUM-MA KIšad ElamtiMountain of Elam.
KUR Gu-ti-um KIšad Gu-ti-iMountain of Gutû or Gutium.
KURZAG Gu-ti-um KIšad pa-at Gu-ti-iMountain of the border of Gutium.
KUR ši-rum KIšad Si-ri-i [?]Mountain of Širû.
KUR [GIŠ] ERI-NA KIšad E-ri-niMountain of Cedar.
KUR MAR-ḪA-ŠI KIšad Pa-ra-ši-iMountain of Parašû.
KUR Šir-rum KIšad Bi-ta-lalMountain of Bitala. (Kaštala is possible.)
KUR Ê-AN-NA KIšad Bi-ta-lalMountain of Bitala.
KUR ḪE-A-NA KIšad Ḫa-ni-eMountain of Ḫanû.
KUR Lu-lu-bi KIšad Lu-lu-bi-eMountain of Lulubû.

Here follows a list of adjectives combined with the word for country, forming descriptions such as “safe country,” “low-lying country,” etc.

In the above list of countries, the land of the Amorites holds the first place, and is repeated three times, there having, to all appearance, been three ways of writing its name in Akkadian. Why this was the case—whether [pg 207] in the older Akkadian literature the scribes distinguished three different districts or not, is not known, but is not at all improbable. The first of the three ways of designating the country is the usual one, and apparently means the land of the Amorites in general, the other two being less used, and possibly indicating the more mountainous parts. What the mountains of Suru or Subartu were is uncertain, but it may be supposed that, as this group is used in the late Babylonian inscriptions (as shown by the text containing the account of the downfall of Assyria) for the domain over which the kings of Assyria ruled, there is hardly any doubt that it stands for the Mesopotamian tract, extending from the boundaries of the Amorites to the frontiers of Babylonia. This would include not only Assyria, but also Aram-naharaim, or Syria, and is in all probability the original of this last word, which has given considerable trouble to students to explain.

In all probability, Siru, like Gutium and the border of Gutium, was a tract in the neighbourhood of Elam, which precedes. A comparison has been made between this Sirum and the Sirrum of the eleventh line of the extract, but as the spelling, and also, seemingly, the pronunciation, is different, it is in all likelihood a different place. The mountain of Cedar, however, is probably Lebanon, celebrated of old, and sufficiently wooded, in the time of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, to give cover to droves of elephants, which the Assyrian king hunted there. Marḫaši (Akk.) or Parašî (Assyr.) seems to have been a country celebrated for its dogs. Concerning Bitala or Kaštala nothing is known, but Ḫanê is supposed to have lain near Birejik on the Orontes.[42] Lulumu, which is apparently the same as [pg 208] Lulubū, was an adjoining state, which the Babylonians claim to have devastated about the twenty-eighth century before Christ, a fact which contributes to the confirmation of the antiquity of Babylonian geographical lore, and its trustworthiness, for the nation which invades another must be well aware of the position and physical features of territory invaded.

It is interesting to note, that one of the ordinary bilingual lists (W.A.I. II. pl. 48) gives what are apparently three mountainous districts, the first being Amurru, translating the Akkadian GIRGIR, which we are told to pronounce Tidnu (see above, pp. [122], [206], and below, p. [312]), the second Urṭū (Ararat), which we are told to pronounce in Akkadian Tilla, and the third Qutû, in Akkadian Gišgala šu anna, “the district with the high barriers,” likewise a part of the Aramean mountains.

After returning from Egypt, Abraham went and dwelt in the south of Canaan, between Bethel and Ai, Lot quitting him in consequence of the quarrel which took place between their respective herdsmen. Concerning the Canaanite and the Perizzite, who were then in the land, the Babylonian inscriptions of this period, as far as they are known, say nothing, but there is hardly any doubt that these nationalities were known to them, this tract being within the boundaries of the Babylonian dominions. That these names do not yet occur, is not to be wondered at, for the Babylonians had been accustomed to call the tract Amurrū, and names which have been long attached to a country do not change at all easily. The next resting-place of the patriarch was by the oaks or terebinths of Mamre in Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.

At this point occurs Gen. ch. xiv., which contains the description of the conflict of the four kings against five—evidently one of the struggles of the Amorites and their allies to throw off the yoke of the Babylonians, [pg 209] who were in this case assisted by several confederate states.

Much has been written concerning this interesting chapter of the Bible. The earlier critics were of opinion that it was impossible that the power of the Elamites should have extended so far at such an early epoch. Later on, when it was shown that the Elamites really had power—and that even earlier than the time of Abraham—the objection of the critics was, that none of the names mentioned in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis really existed in the inscriptions. The history of Abraham was a romance, and the names of the Eastern kings with whom he came into contact equally so. It was true that there were Elamite names commencing with the element Kudur, the Chedor of the sacred text, but Chedorlaomer did not occur, Amraphel and Tidal were equally wanting, and that Arioch was the same as Eri-Aku or Rim-Aku could not be proved.

The first step in solving the riddle was that made by Prof. Eberhard Schrader, who suggested that Amraphel was none other than the well-known Babylonian king Ḫammurabi. This, naturally, was a theory which did not soon find acceptance—at least by all the Assyriologists. There were, however, two things in its favour—this king ruled sufficiently near to the time of Abraham, and he overcame a ruler named Rim-Sin or Rim-Aku, identified by the late George Smith with the Arioch of the chapter we are now considering. Concerning the latter ruler, Rim-Aku, there is still some doubt, but the difficulties which attended the identification of Ḫammurabi with Amraphel have now practically disappeared. The first step was the discovery of the form Ammurabi in one of the numerous contracts drawn up during his reign at Sippara, the city of the Sun-god. This form shows that the guttural was not the hard guttural kh, but the softer h. Yet another step [pg 210] nearer the Biblical form is that given by Ašaridu, who, in a letter to “the great and noble Asnapper,” writes as follows—

Ana šarri bêli-iaTo the king, my lord,
ârad-ka, (A)šaridu.thy servant Ašaridu.
Nabû û Marduk ana šar mâtātiNebo and Merodach to the king of the countries,
bêli-ia likrubu.my lord, be favourable.
Duppi ša šarru ippušuThe tablet which the king makes
...-ṭu û ul-šalim.is bad(?) and incomplete.
(A)dū duppi.Now a tablet,
(la)biru ša Ammurapi sarru.an old one, of Ammurapi the king
(e)pušu-ma alṭaru—I have made and written out—
(la?) pani Ammurapi šarru.it is of the time (?) of Ammurapi the king.
Kî ašpuruAs I have sent (to inform the king),
ultu Bâbîlifrom Babylon
attašâI will bring (it).
Šarru nipisuThe king (will be able to do) the work
[ina] pittiat once.