The Amorites

 

The Amorites

            Who the Amorites were and in what ways they contributed to ancient Near Eastern society is not exactly clear for historians. While they did have a separate language, they left no texts behind nor any record of it.[1] References to the Amorites are found in the writings from other groups and identification of those with Amorite descent discovered through the grammatical analysis of names from the period.[2]  The name Amorite comes to us from the Akkadian amurru, and the Sumerian symbols for MAR.TU.[3] The term can also refer to “the west” and may be a reference to groups from “the west.” Van De Mieroop states that the Amorites were not an ethnic group and the term amurru may refer to any semi-nomadic people from the west.[4] Further clouding the issue are differences in how Amorite culture impacted Mesopotamian society and how they were received and understood by both the people of the time period and future generations. However, it is possible to piece together a picture of the Amorites through texts, primarily those from Mari and the Third Dynasty of Ur.

            The Amorites originated in Syria and began to spread out beginning in the third millennium BCE.[5] By the end of that millennium, they could be found living as far as southern Mesopotamia.[6] From the late third millennium and into the early second, there was a rise in the number of Amorites found in cities across the Near East, especially in Syria and Mesopotamia.[7] Originally, these groups were semi-nomadic pastoralists who spent part of the year settling near urban agricultural zones. It was in these periods that they came most closely into contact with city-state society. Some texts from the period, especially those from the kings of the Ur III period show a dislike for the Amorites, as they were considered “uncivilized barbarians.”[8] In fact, one king built a wall, though it was unsuccessful, to keep out the Amorites. Referred to as the “Amorite Wall,” it bore the name Muriq-tidnim or “It keeps Tidmun at a distance.”[9] According to Schwartz, the Amorites were centered around kinship with groups broken down into “Tribes,” “Subtribes,” and “Tribal Confederacies.”[10]

            By the early second millennium, Amorites were to be found in many cities as some of them left the semi-nomadic lifestyle and began to settle down. By analyzing names, it can be determined that many officials and rulers of city-states were of Amorite descent.[11] One Amorite ruler of Mari was named Yahdun-Lim, translated as “He Pleases Lim.” Lim is an Amorite god and analysis has shown this to be an Amorite name.[12] By the Ur III period, Amorites had become well established in Babylonian society.[13] After the collapse of Ur III, Amorite descendants continued to rue over several city-states, many of them adopting traditional Mesopotamian titles, but also maintaining titles such as rabian amurrim, “Prince of the Amorites.” Aside from this, however, the Amorites left little impact on Babylonian life, political system, or language.[14] Van De Mieroop notes that they did not establish a new culture, instead blending into the existing Mesopotamian culture and utilizing Sumerian and Akkadian for their literature.[15]

            The Amorite legacy, however, presents a dilemma. While many new dynasties, particularly after the mid-twentieth century BCE, claimed Amorite descent[16], later texts throughout Mesopotamia seems to blame them for the collapse of Ur III society. In a contemporary poem titled the Marriage of Martu, the author describes the Amorite as a brutish individual who lives in tents during the wind and rain, does not know how to properly pray to gods, eats raw meat, and lives life without a home.[17] It is difficult to reconcile the texts that view the Amorites negatively with both the high offices some of them held and the pride some Amorite rulers held in their heritage. Hammurabi, perhaps the best-known Babylonian ruler of Amorite descent claimed the title of “King of the Amorites.”[18]

            Sources for discovery of Amorite history are limited in nature and have already been mentioned previously. All texts were from outside Amorite circles that reference the Amorite groups. The other primary source available is the grammatical analysis of names. Due to this, the material is highly limited, and it is not possible to reconstruct a full understanding of Amorite culture. The texts that refer to Amorites are possibly plagued by some form of bias as many of them view the Amorites with contempt and yet we know that Amorites were fully integrated into Near Eastern society, some reaching high offices and as rulers of city-states. One possibility is that many of the early references to Amorites reflected a distrust of nomadic peoples by urban society and initial waves of Amorites were looked at as “uncivilized barbarians.” Later texts that cast negative views on Amorites could be anachronistic in nature and reflected this earlier dislike of the pastoralist lifestyle.

---

[1] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.

[2] Ibid, pg. 94.

[3] Ibid, pg. 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 94.

[8]   Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[9]   Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 93.

[12] Ibid, pg. 111.

[13] Schwartz, Glenn M. “An Amorite Global Village: Syrian-Mesopotamian Relations in the Second Millennium BC.” Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC. Ed. Joan Aruz, Sarah B. Graff, and Yelena Rakic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Pg. 3.

[14] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 111.

[15] Ibid, pg. 95.

[16] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.

[17] Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Fluckiger-Hawker, E, Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998- . “Marriage of Martu,” Lines 127-141.

[18] Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 BC. 3rd Ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016, pg. 95.