Shinar

SHINAR (shī'nar, Heb. shin‘ār). The region containing the cities of Babel, Erech (cf. modern Iraq), Akkad, and Calneh (Gen.10.10), the locations of which, except Akkad, are unknown. Akkad may have been the Agade known to archaeologists as the capital chosen by Sargon I, ancient king of Babylon. Shinar lay on the alluvial plain of Babylonia, and for many centuries was perhaps the most fertile region on earth. Herodotus speaks of two-hundredfold yields of grain there. Gen.11.1-Gen.11.9 speaks of the early postdiluvians traveling east and finding a plain in the land of Shinar, where they started to build a tower. Amraphel, king of Shinar, invaded Canaan in the days of Abraham (Gen.14.1). Nebuchadnezzar was ruler of the land of Shinar (Dan.1.2 jb, kjv, mlb, mof, nasb, neb, rsv; Babylonia niv), and it is mentioned in two prophecies (Isa.11.11; Zech.5.11), where NIV again has Babylonia in the text and Shinar in a footnote to each.

SHINAR shīn’ är (שִׁנְעָֽר; Σεναάρ, Σενναρ). A designation for the land of Babylonia.

Use.

Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11).

Identification.

The reference to known Babylonian cities within Shinar (Gen 10:10; 11:2) and the equation with Babylon of the Exile (Dan 1:2) makes the identification with Babylonia almost certain. In this way the LXX read “Babylonia” in Isaiah 11:11 and “land of Babylon” in Zechariah 5:11. No undisputed equivalent of the Heb. shīn’ar has, however, yet been found in early texts from Babylonia itself, since a spelling šim/nğar has not been attested. Sumer, which is the name for the area of ancient Iraq S of Baghdad in the eme.-ku dialect (written ki.en.gi[r] ideographically or keñir in fine Sumer. speech [eme.sal dialect]). The northern part of ancient Babylonia was called Akkad. The term Sumer, used since 2350 b.c. for the land, is today used to describe the whole of ancient Babylonia before the Sem. dynasty at Babylon took control and for its inhabitants.

In Egyp. lists of Asiatic countries known to Seti I and Amenhotep II shankhar is included (ANET [1950], 243, 247). Though this has been taken to be the Babylonian Shinar (A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 209) others interpret it as a reference to an Upper Mesopotamian Sangara (the modern Sinjar, W of Mosul), which is written ša-an-ḫa-ar in a Tell el-Amarna letter (No. 5) and ša-an-ḫa-ra in Hitt. texts (so W. F. Albright, AJSL XL [1953], 125-127). This northern identification might suit Genesis 14:1 but is of itself not evidence for it. An etymology for the southern (Babylonian) Shinar has been proposed in šingi-uru (A. Poebel, AJSL LXVIII [1934]) and 8th cent. a.d. Syr. Sen’ar denoted the land around Baghdad. The balance of evidence is thus in favor of the equation Shinar=Babylonia used by the Heb.

The Sumerians.

Origin.

The early peoples who migrated into the Tigris-Euphrates valley called themselves “the blackheaded peoples.” Their place of origin is unknown and has given rise to various theories. Since they employ the same ideogram for “mountain” and “land,” their homeland is thought to have been in the NE (Caucasus) and that they were the originators of the artificial mountain-like temple-towers (see ZIGGURRAT). However, since their earliest settlements were in the S others assume that they came from the E by sea, which may explain why, like the Semites who were also in the same area, they were not reinvigorated by periodic fresh immigration.

Writing.

Sumerian has no proven relation to any other language, ancient or modern. It is a non-Sem., agglutinative, inflected and part tonal speech written in the cuneiform script which would seem to have been their invention. In various dialects it survives on several thousand clay tablets found during excavations in Babylonia. In the fourth millennium b.c. the writing was pictographic, the earliest examples being found at Warka (Uruk IV) and neighboring sites, but this soon gave way to a well-developed polysyllabic writing employing more than four hundred different signs. A varied lit. was influential since the same script was taken over for use in the Sem. dialects of Assyrian and Babylonian (Akkad.) and for dialects in Syria and Pal. as well as for the non-Sem. languages including Elamite, Kassite, Hittite, Hurrian and Old Persian. Since many bilingual texts survive, there is much evidence for the language and through it of early Sumer. history. At the same time archeological data from distinct periods of occupation e.g. Uruk (3300-3100 b.c.) and the Prot-literate or Early Dynastic period (3100-2800), show a unique people living in major cities.

History.

Early period.

A Sumer. king list written c. 2150 b.c. ascribes kingship first to the city of Eridu and then in turn to Badtibirra, Larak, Sippar and Shuruppak. Eight kings reigned for 241,209 years in these five cities and then “the flood swept over the earth.” Another text lists ten such rulers, but two of these may have been contemporaries, so, though there are superficial similarities between these lists and the ten antideluvian patriarchs (Gen 5) and the pre-flood monarchs of the later Berossus account, no direct correlation is possible. In all lists it is the tenth who survives the Flood and all display a longevity which, in the Babylonian accounts with ages of more than 20,000 years each, make the life-span of Methuselah (969 years; Gen 5:27) look insignificant.

After the Flood the king list declares that “kingship was let down again from heaven, first in Kish.” Seventy-eight kings held sway in Kish, Ur, Uruk (Erech), Mari and other named cities. Around the rulers of the Uruk dynasty—Enmerkar, Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh—there grew up a series of stories of the “Heroic Age,” the last of these being the hero of the Babylonian flood epic. That they were historic personages cannot be doubted since epigraphic and architectural remains attesting their presence are associated with them.

The Classical period

(2700-2150 b.c.). The Sumer. civilization developed from the need to organize local labor to control the resources of nature and their environment. Manpower for irrigation and defense was worked through a city-council of representatives under a lord (en) who later assumed the role of “king” (lugal=“chief man”). There is evidence for a primitive form of democracy which soon clashed with the growing power of the priests and temple, but eventually outclassed the latter through the control of military forces. The larger cities, Ur, Lagash, Kish, and Umma were continual rivals for overall power. Kish took over hegemony from Uruk until a stronger family at Ur, Mesannipada’ and his son A’anipadda (c. 2550) with links with Mari in the N, held sway. The royal graves found at Ur belong to this dynasty and bear witness to the wealth of this time. After a dispute with Umma had been settled by the intervention of Mesilim of Kish, Lagash became the dominant center. Eannatum was followed by Urukagina who by social reforms and legislation sought to curb the growing bureauracy which bore hardly on the poor, the widows and the fatherless. Despite his efforts to restore the rights of the individual, his people failed to withstand the pressures of Lugalzaggesi of Umma who took over the city and was himself soon thereafter conquered by the powerful Semite, Sargon of Agade who thus brought Sumer. overlordship to an end.

The Sumerian renaissance.

A period of splendor under the Sem. house of Agade was followed by nearly a cent. of twilight mediocrity under Gutian rulers until they were thrown out by Utuhegal, the en(si) of Uruk, c. 2120 b.c. Seven years later one of his own officials, Ur-Nammu, governor of Ur, took the titles “King of Sumer and Akkad” and inaugurated the third dynasty of Ur (2113-2006 b.c.) This was marked by order in Sumer. influence far beyond its bounds, by economic prosperity and a revival in every branch of Sumer. lit. and art. Ur-Nammu’s “code” of laws is the oldest to have yet survived in a land which was renowned for its tradition and continuity of ideas. His achitectural activities extended beyond Ur, which he virtually rebuilt, to Uruk, Eridu, and Nippur. In each place he built a ziggurat and rebuilt fallen temples. Meanwhile a contemporary, Gudea of Lagash, marched to Syria and Anatolia and brought back building materials to embellish his own city.

When Ur-Nammu died in battle his son Shulgi succeeded to the throne. He continued the political and administrative reforms begun by his father and for forty-seven years fought the hill tribes to the N. Like his son Amar-Su’en he was considered divine. This does not seem to have affected the Mesopotamian belief and practice, whereby the king always thought of himself as the vice-regent and servant of the chief god of his city to whom he was ever responsible for truth and justice. Such belief is in direct contrast to that of the infallible authority of the divine pharaohs of Egypt. Indeed, after this dynasty no other kings classed themselves as “gods” in Mesopotamia. Amar-Su’en, who died of infection from a foot ailment, was buried in the “Royal Cemetery” at Ur with his fathers. His brother, Shu-Su’en (2038-2030 b.c.) had to fight in the Zagros mountains and to the W where a defensive wall failed to keep out the increasing incursions of the Amorites (MAR. TU). In the days of his successor, Ishbi-Irra, a vain attempt to enlist Elamite help against these western Semites failed and the city fell in 2006. Under a dominant Sem. regime at Isin and Larsa Ur lost its control of the economy, and a bid to regain its independence from Samu-iluna, son of Hammurabi, resulted in the destruction of the city. The whole of Sumer was henceforth in the hands of Sem. rulers, with but brief intervals, until conquered by Cyrus the Persian in 539 b.c.

Sumerian literature.

Apart from its institutions, through its lit. and religion the thought, style and manner of these early inhabitants of Babylonia was transmitted to both contemporary and later civilizations and is of importance as the background of much in Genesis 1-11. The texts detail the range of its gods, rituals and religious practices as well as its incipient sciences (medicine, astronomy, mathematics and technology). Each city had its principal god and temple. Thus Nanna(r), or Su’en the later moon-god Sin, was god of Ur; An, the sky-god at Uruk, Enki(Ea) god of the deep waters and mysteries at the sea port of Eridu. Enlil, the god of the air and head of the overall pantheon had his seat at Nippur which thus became the chief cult center. In the lit. the gods were portrayed as exceptionally powerful humans. The Sumer. mind concerned itself with nature, for it was largely an agricultural community with industry confined to a few city centers. It pondered the problems of death and the afterlife (Gilgamesh Epic), yet was abounding with practical wisdom (collections of proverbs, essays of advice, parables) as well as court and temple ritual in the desire to know the mind of the gods (omens, hymns, prayers). Sumerian myths discussed the role of deities (“the Birth of the Moon God”), vocation and creation of the world and of man, paradise and evil. Most texts were in poetic form; among them are long love poems and lamentations. The longest historiographic text is the “Curse of Agade” which city was seen to have been destroyed by the Guti as punishment for its evil by the gods using international military forces. Wisdom lit. includes essays, one, like Job, discussing human suffering. In language, thought, literary genre, and in other ways the influence of Sumer can be said to have been immense and lived on through the Babylonians to the Greeks and the W not without leaving its mark on the OT (cf. ANET 1950), 27-59, 159.

Bibliography

T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King-List (1939); “Primitive Democracy in ancient Mesopotamia,” JNES II (1943), 159-172; H. H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilisation in the Ancient Near East (1951); S. N. Kramer, “Sumerian Historiography,” IEJ 3 (1953), 217-232; From the Tablets of Sumer (-History Begins at Sumer) (1956); I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs (1959); A. Falkenstein, Das Sumerische (1959); A. Parrot, Sumer (1960); S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology (1961); “Sumerian Literature, a general survey” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1961), 249-259; C. J. Gadd, The Cities of Babylonia, CAH I/2 (1971), 93-144; S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character (1963).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)

(shin`ar; Senaar Sen(n)aar):

1. Identification

2. Possible Babylonian Form of the Name

3. Sumerian and Other Equivalents

4. The Syriac Sen’ar

5. The Primitive Tongue of Shinar

6. Comparison with the Semitic Idiom

7. The Testimony of the Sculptures, etc., to the Race

8. The Sumerians Probably in Shinar before the Semites

9. The States of Shinar:

(1) Sippar;

(2) Kes;

(3) Babylon;

(4) Nippur;

(5) Adab;

(6) Surippak;

(7) Umma;

(8) Erech;

(9) Lagas;

(10) Larsa;

(11) Ur;

(12) Eridu;

(13) The Land of the Sea;

(14) Nisin, Isin, or Karrak;

(15) Upa or Upia (Opis);

(16) Other Well-known Cities

10. Shinar and Its Climate

11. Sculpture in Shinar

12. The First Nation to Use Writing in Western Asia

13. The System Employed, with an Example

1. Identification:

The name given, in the earliest Hebrew records, to Babylonia, later called Babel, or the land of Babel (babhel, ’erets babhel). In Ge 10:10 it is the district wherein lay Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, cities which were the "beginning" of Nimrod’s kingdom. In 11:2 Shinar is described as the land of the plain where migrants from the East settled, and founded Babel, the city, and its great tower.

2. Possible Babylonian Form of the Name:

Though sometimes identified with the Babylonian Sumer, the connection of Shinar with that name is doubtful. The principal difficulty lies in the fact that what might be regarded as the non-dialectical form singar (which would alone furnish a satisfactory basis of comparison) is not found, and would, if existent, only apply to the southern portion of Babylonia. The northern tract was called Akkad, after the name of its capital city (see Accad). The Greek form Sen(n)aar shows that, at the time the Septuagint translation was made, there was no tradition that the `ayin was guttural, as the supposed Babylonian forms would lead us to expect. As the Biblical form Shinar indicates the whole of Babylonia, it corresponds with the native (Sumerian) Kingi-Ura, rendered "Sumer and Akkad," from which, by changing "K" into "Sh" (found in Sumerian), Shinar may have been derived, but this explanation is not free from difficulties.

3. Sumerian and Other Equivalents:

This two-fold designation, Kingi-Ura, is that which is commonly used in the inscriptions of the earlier kings, though it cannot then have indicated always the whole country, but only such parts of it as acknowledged their overlordship. Later on the corresponding term seems to have been Kar-Dunias ("the territory of the god Dunias," to all appearance a term introduced by the Kassite rulers). Nabonassar and his successors seem to have contented themselves with the title "king of Babylon," rule in the city implying also the dominion over the whole country. Often, however, the equivalent term for Babylonia is Ehi, probably an abbreviation of Eridu, and here standing for the land belonging to that sacred city--"the good city," a type of Paradise, Babylonia being, in fact, situated upon the edinu, or "plain."

See Eden.

4. The Syriac Sen’ar:

All these comparisons tend to show that the Babylonian equivalent of Shinar is not any of the above, and as yet has not, in fact, been found. This is also implied by the fact, that Sen’ar was used in Syriac for the country around Bagdad, and in ancient times included (it may be supposed) the plain upon which the ruins of Babylon stand. Sen’ar was therefore in all probability an ancient Babylonian designation of the tract, now lost, but regarded by the Hebrews as synonymous with Babylonia.

5. The Primitive Tongue of Shinar:

From the inscriptions it would seem that the primitive language of Shinar was not Semitic, but the agglutinative idiom now named Sumerian--a tongue long regarded as Turanian, and having, it is thought, Turko-Chinese affinities--gal, "to be," Turkish ol-mak; ama (ana), "mother," Turkish ana; abba, "old man," Turkish baba, "father"; (h)e, "house," Turkish ev, etc. The Chinese affinities seem less close, but the following may be quoted: a(y)a "father," Chinese ye (Amoy ia); ge, "night," Chinese ye; gu, "to speak," Chinese yu; shu, "hand," Chinese sheu; kin, "business," Chinese kung, "work"; etc. Chinese and Turkish, however, have had time to pass through many changes since Sumerian was current in Shinar. Many words of the Sumerian language were borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians, and a few (like hekal, "temple," Semitic (h)egal, "great house") entered the other Semitic languages.

6. Comparison with the Semitic Idiom:

Halevy’s contention, that Sumerian is simply "an allography" for the expression of Sera Babylonian, seems to be untenable, as they differ not only in words, but also in grammar; moreover, Sumerian had a dialect, called by the natives "woman’s tongue." For the rest, the principal differences between Sumerian and Semitic Babylonian are:

(1) post-positional suffixes instead of prepositions;

(2) verbs with long strings of prefixes and infixes to express the persons and regimens, instead of a prefix and a suffix;

(3) compound words, both nouns and verbs, are common instead of being exceedingly rare. Sumerian seems to have borrowed several words from Semitic Babylonian.

7. The Testimony of the Sculptures, etc. to the Race:

Not only the language, but also the sculptures which they have left, point to the probability that the earlier inhabitants of Shinar belonged to a different race from the later. The Semites of Babylonia were to all appearance thick-set and muscular, but the Sumerians, notwithstanding the stumpy figures which their statues and bas-reliefs show, seem to have been slim--in any case, their warriors, in the better basreliefs, as well as the figures of the god Nin-Girsu (formerly known as "the god with the firestick"), and the engraved cylinders, have this type. Moreover, the sculptures and cylinder-seals show that certain classes--priests or the like--were clean shaven, in marked contrast to Semitic usage elsewhere. Their deities, however, always had hair and beard, implying that they came from a different, though possibly related, stock. These deities were very numerous, and it is noteworthy that, though those with Sumerian names may be counted by hundreds, those with Semitic names are only to be reckoned by tens.

8. The Sumerians Probably in Shinar before the Semites:

Though there is no certain indication which race entered Shinar first, it is to be noted that Nimrod, presumably Shinar’s first king and the founder of its great cities, was a son of Cush (Ge 10:8), and the name of Shinar seems to have existed before the foundation of Babel (Babylon) and its tower (Ge 11:2). In the native sculptures, moreover, the non-Semitic type precedes the Semitic; and in the inscriptions the non-Semitic idiom precedes that of the Semitic tranlation. Everything points, therefore, to the Sumerians having been in Babylonia before the Semitic inhabitants.

9. The States of Shinar:

At the earliest period to which our records refer the Sumerians of Shinar were divided into a number of small states, of which the following may be regarded as the principal:

(1) Sippar:

Sippar or Sippar-Aruru (-Ya’ruru), possibly including Accad (Ge 10:10), some distance Southwest of Bagdad. It is the modern ’Abu-habbah, "father of grain." Though it seems to have fallen early under the dominion of the Semites, it was at first Sumerian, as its native name, Zimbir, and the ideographic writing thereof show. According to Berosus, who calls it Pantabiblion, one of its earliest kings was Amelon or Amillarus, who reigned 13 sari, or 46,800 years. Later on came Evedoreschus, the native Enwe-duran-ki, renowned as a priest favored by the gods. His descendants, if of pure race, inherited the divine grace which he enjoyed. It is said to have been in Sippara (Sippar) that Ut-napistim, the Babylonian Noah, buried the records before entering the ark.

(2) Kes:

About 18 miles North of Babylon lay Kes, now Oheimer--a foundation which seems to have preceded Babylon as the capital of Shinar. Its early queen, Azag-Bau, is said to have been the wife of a wine-merchant and to have reigned 100 years.

(3) Babylon:

Babylon, for which see Babel; Babylon. As one of its early kings, Berosus mentions Alorus, "the shepherd of the people," as having reigned for 10 sari, or 36,000 years. The state of Babylon probably included Cuthah. (Tel Ibrahim), which once had kings of its own, and possessed a special legend of the Creation. Belonging to Babylon, also, was the renowned city Borsippa, now Birs, or the Birs Nimroud, the traditional site of the Tower of Babel.

See Tower of Babel.

(4) Nippur:

Some distance Southeast of Babylon lay Nippur or Niffur, now Niffer (Noufar), identified by the rabbis with the "Calneh" of Ge 10:10. It was a place of considerable importance, and the seat of the worship of Enlil and Ninlil, later, also, of their son Ninip and his spouse (see Calneh). The American excavations on this site have thrown a flood of light upon almost every branch of Assyriological research.

(5) Adab:

Adab, now called Bismaya, the city of Mah, the goddess of reproduction. One of the earliest rulers of Adab was seemingly called Lugal-dalu, of whom a fine statue, discovered by the American explorers, exists. It was apparently renowned as a necropolis.

(6) Surippak:

South and a little West of Adab was Surippak, now Fara. This was the birthplace of the Babylonian Noah, Ut-napistim, son of Opartes (Umbara-Tutu), a Chaldean of Larancha. The coming of the Flood was revealed to Ut-napistim here.

(7) Umma:

Practically East of Fara lay Umma or Gisuh (or Giuh), now Jokha. This city was apparently of considerable importance, and the traditional rival of Lagas.

(8) Erech:

South of Fara lay Unuga, Semitic Uruk, the Biblical ERECH (which see), now Warka. Its most celebrated king, after Gilgames, was Lugal-zaggi-si, one of the opponents of the rulers of Lagas.

(9) Lagas:

Some distance East of Warka was the territory of Lagas, now Tel-loh--a little state, rather in accessible, but of considerable importance to the antiquarian, which is a testimonial to the advance in civilization which it had made. Its kings and viceroys were among the most renowned, though apparently unknown outside their own domains. The most celebrated were the reformer Uru-ka-gina and viceroy Gudea, to whom many erections in the city were due. (See Gudea’s remarkable statue in the Louvre.)

(10) Larsa:

Somewhat to the Southeast of Warka lay Larsa, the "Ellasar" of Ge 14:1 (which see). This center of learning maintained its independence even after the other states had been absorbed by Hammurabi and his dynasty into the Babylonian empire.

(11) Ur:

To the Southeast of Warka and Senqara lies the site of the ancient UR OF THE CHALDEES (which see) now Mugheir. It was renowned for its temple to the moon, and for the kings known as the dynasty of Ur: Sur-Engur, Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin.

(12) Eridu:

South of the Ur lay Eridu, or, in full, Guruduga, "the good city," wherein, apparently, lay the earthly Paradise. This is identified with the present `Abu-shahrein, and was the seat of Ea or Enki, god of the sea and of fertilizing streams. According to the tradition, it was there that the "dark vine" grew--a type, seemingly, of the tree of life. The later kings of Babylon sometimes bear the title "king of Eridu," as though rulers of the domain of Paradise.

(13) The Land of the Sea:

The Land of the Sea (that bordering on the Persian Gulf), in which, seemingly, the Chaldeans afterward settled, seems to have played an important part in the early history of Shinar. Berosus speaks of its king Ammenon, who reigned 12 sari, or 43,200 years, and in whose time the Musarus Oannes, or Annedotus, arose out of the Persian Gulf. Like others referred to in the legends which Berosus refers to, he was half-man and half-fish. It is thought that these incidents, though evidently mythical, point to the introduction of civilization into Babylonia, from this point.