by
Damien F. Mackey
“At the time when Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Kedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea Valley).
For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the
thirteenth year they rebelled”.
Genesis 14:1-4
Seismic shifts in Geography
Prior to any discussion now of who were the four coalitional kings of Genesis 14, who successfully invaded Syro-Palestine, we need to re-set their geography, which has undergone seismic shifts away from the earlier accepted opinions.
Land of Elam
When previously I had begun seriously to scrutinise the four kings of Genesis 14 as to their identifications and geography, it had occurred to me that one of them, Chedorlaomer (Kedorlaomer), king of Elam, was situated much too far to the east to have been able to keep under his control so distant a region as the Dead Sea Valley.
So unsatisfied was I with this received geographical scenario that I began to look for a different place with a name like Elam, situated more reasonably close within range of the land of Canaan. The best that I could come up with was the location, Helam, against which King David had fought (2 Samuel 10:17): “When David heard of it, he gathered the Israelite troops, crossed the Jordan River, and marched to Helam, where the Syrians took up their position facing him”. The exact location of Helam, however, is not known, it being broadly described as ‘between the Jordan and the Euphrates’.
Some time later my wish for an Elam situated nearer to the land of Canaan was realised when I read Royce (Richard) Erickson’s stunning (2020) article:
A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY
(4) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY | Royce Erickson - Academia.edu
in which the author has dragged the entire land of Elam hundreds of miles away from its usual place, to the region of Anatolia.
Susa, the capital of Elam, was now to be re-identified as Sis (Kozan), in the Adana Province of Turkey.
That, I thought, was now far more satisfactory and accessible for King Chedorlaomer.
Land of Shinar
Amraphel king of Shinar (Genesis 14:1) likewise had to be provided with a more satisfactory geography. This I attempted to do in my recent article:
Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel
(4) Land of Shinar, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
wherein I wrote:
“Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”.
Genesis 11:1-2
The Hebrew word miqqedem (מִקֶּדֶם), translated here as “eastward”, can also mean “from the east”, so we don’t need to become too squeezed directionally.
The word can even have the quite different meaning of “in ancient times”.
The meaning of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר) can be disputed. It may mean “country of two rivers”.
The “plain” (בִקְעָ֛ה), biq’ah, of Shinar may just as accurately be translated as “valley”.
Long tradition has Shinar connected with the name, Sumer, which is thought to have been the region of southern Mesopotamia (or ancient Sumeria), where Babylon is generally considered to have been situated.
From this region, conservative, biblically-minded scholars will build up a whole Babel scenario, humanity having just the one language, and a world-wide dispersion.
….
The Bible refers to Shinar only a few times:
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Shinar
“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)”.
One thing appears to be certain. Babylon was situated in the land of Shinar, because (Daniel 1:2):
“And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into [Nebuchednezzar, king of Babylon’s] hand, along with some of the articles from the Temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Shinar and put in the treasure house of his god”.
But, was the city of Babylon also situated in southern Mesopotamia?
Dr. W. F. Albright, though a conventional scholar, defied tradition by identifying the land of Shinar in the region of Hana (“Shinar-Šanḡar and Its Monarch Amraphel”, AJSLL, Vol. 40, no. 2, 1924).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Khana
“The Kingdom of Khana or Kingdom of Hana (late 18th century BC – mid-17th century BC) was the Syrian kingdom from Hana Land in the middle Euphrates region north of Mari, which included the ancient city of Terqa”.
Terqa was located near the mouth of the Khabur river, thus being a trade hub on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers.
This area I believe approximates to the land of Shinar, the “country of two rivers”.
Now, we really appear to be getting somewhere.
For, when the Jews went into Babylonian Exile, the prophet Ezekiel encountered them at the Chebar river, as he tells at the beginning (Ezekiel 1:1; cf. 3:15): “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Chebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God”.
Surely the Chebar - unknown in the “Babylon” region of southern Mesopotamia - can only be the Khabur river.
And, indeed, this was an older commentary opinion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Abib#:~:text=Location,in%20what%20is%20now%20Syria “The Kebar or Chebar Canal (or River) is the setting of several important scenes of the Book of Ezekiel, including the opening verses. The book refers to this river eight times in total. …. Some older biblical commentaries identified the Chebar with the Khabur River in what is now Syria”.
This now means that we must be in the approximate region of the real Babylon in the land of Shinar. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps …”. (Psalm 136:1-2 Douay; 137:1-2 NIV). ….
What all of this means is that the geography of the mighty pair, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam, has been shifted far to the NW 0f southern Mesopotamia, wrongly known as the land of Sumer. See also on this my article:
“The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia
(5) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu
Presumably, then, the historically obscure allies of these two great kings, “Arioch king of Ellasar … and Tidal king of Goyim …”, will also be found to have been located within this revised geographical scenario, and not in, respectively, Larsa (thought to be in Sumer) and Gutium in the central Zagros region.
Our next task is to attempt an historical identification of the coalitional kings.
Who were the Four Kings?
The primary focus here will be to identify historically the two leading players, Amraphel of Shinar and Chedorlaomer of Elam.
The other two kings, Arioch and Tidal, may have been more like officials, subordinate to Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, but powerful enough in their own right. As Sennacherib of Assyria will much later boast (Isaiah 10:8): ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’
If we are to take a biblical clue, then Tidal’s Goyim might have been the cavalry fortress location of Sisera, serving Jabin king of Canaan. For, as we read in Judges 4:13: “Sisera summoned from Harosheth Haggoyim to the Kishon River all his men and his nine hundred chariots fitted with iron”. This fort (presuming it had even existed in the time of the four kings) would have been a useful launching pad for the four kings’ irruption into Ashteroth Karnaim and southwards beyond (see Dr. Osgood’s map above).
And I have flirted with the idea - without much conviction - that Arioch’s Ellasar could have been the important Mediterranean port city of Ullaza, north of Byblos.
Amraphel of Shinar
In my “Land of Shinar” article, once again, I identified Amraphel king of Shinar as the biblical Nimrod, and as the historical Sargon of Akkad. There I wrote:
“Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man.
He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said,
‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord’.”
Genesis 10:8-9
Many scholars have tried their hand at historically identifying the biblical Nimrod.
Dr. David Rohl’s suggested Enmerkar (“Nmr the Hunter”) may be correct. Enmerkar was an early king of Uruk, which could be Nimrod’s “Erech”, so long as the famous Uruk in southern Mesopotamia is not intended.
Dr. David Livingston has identified Nimrod with the semi-legendary Gilgamesh, also a king of Uruk, who is reputed to have built walls at Uruk.
http://www.davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm
….
While the real Nimrod may be a composite of such semi-legendary characters as Enmerkar and Gilgamesh, the most likely full-bodied tyrant-king for him would be, as various scholars have concluded: Sargon the Great of Akkad.
I would enlarge on this, though, by modifying the Akkadian dynasty and identifying Sargon with his supposed grandson, the similarly great Naram-Sin, as well as with Shar kali sharri, and, biblically, with “Amraphel … king of Shinar” (Genesis 14:1). Amraphel was for long (but wrongly) thought to be Hammurabi king of Babylon.
….
My extension of Amraphel, through Sargon of Akkad to include his supposed descendants, Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri, will prove to be most fortuitous now (though originally quite unintended) as we come to consider the Akkadian partnership with Chedorlaomer of Elam.
Chedorlaomer of Elam
Chedorlaomer is clearly the powerful Elamite king - often called emperor - of various names, Kutur-Inshushinak (Puzur Inshushinak; Kutik Inshushinak).
The name Chedorlaomer is purely Elamite, Kudur-Lagamar.
According to the Wikipedia article, “Puzur-Inshushinak” (and note the interaction with all of Sargon; Naram-Sin and Shar kali sharri:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzur-Inshushinak
Puzur-Inshushinak (Linear Elamite: Puzur Sušinak, Akkadian: 𒌋𒌋𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur3-dinšušinak, also 𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞, puzur4-dinšušinak "Calling Inshushinak"), also sometimes thought to read Kutik-Inshushinak in Elamite,[3] was king of Elam, around 2100 BC,[4] and the last from the Awan dynasty according to the Susa kinglist.[5] He mentions his father's name as Šimpi-išhuk, which, being an Elamite name, suggests that Puzur-Inshuhinak himself was Elamite.[6]
In the inscription of the "Table au Lion", he appears as "Puzur-Inshushin(ak) Ensi (Governor) of Susa, Shakkanakku (Military Governor) of the country of Elam" (𒅤𒊭𒀭𒈹𒂞 𒑐𒋼𒋛 𒈹𒂞𒆠 𒄊𒀴 𒈣𒋾 𒉏𒆠 puzur-inshushinak ensi shushiki skakkanakku mati NIMki), a title used by his predecessors Eshpum, Epirmupi and Ili-ishmani as governors of the Akkadian Empire for the territory of Elam.[2][7] In another inscription, he calls himself the "Mighty King of Elam", suggesting an accession to independence from the weakening Akkadian Empire.[8]
Rule
….
Kutik-Inshushinak's first position was as governor of Susa, which he may have held from a young age. About 2110 BC, his father died, and he became crown prince in his stead.
Elam had been under the domination of Akkad since the time of Sargon, and Kutik-Inshushinak accordingly campaigned in the Zagros mountains on their behalf. He was greatly successful as his conquests seem to have gone beyond the initial mission. Early on his inscriptions were in Akkadian but over time they came to be also in Linear Elamite.[9]
In 2090 BC, he asserted his independence from king Shar-Kali-Sharri of the Akkadian Empire, which had been weakening ever since the death of Naram-Sin, thus making himself king of Elam.[10] He conquered Anshan and managed to unite most of Elam into one kingdom.[10]
According to the inscriptions of Ur-Nammu, Puzur-Inshushinak conquered numerous cities … including Eshnunna and Akkad, and probably Akshak.[11] His conquests probably encroached considerably on Gutian territory, gravely weakening them ….
….
He built extensively on the citadel at Susa, and encouraged the use of the Linear Elamite script to write the Elamite language. This may be seen as a reaction against Sargon's attempt to force the use of Akkadian. Most inscriptions in Linear Elamite date from the reign of Kutik-Inshushinak. ….
[End of quote]
This all fits well with the tradition that Chedorlaomer, initially subservient to the Akkadians, rose up to become the leader:
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548
NIMROD.
By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher, Executive Committee of the Editorial Board.
….
Ten years later Nimrod came to wage war with Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, who had been one of Nimrod's generals, and who after the dispersion of the builders of the tower went to Elam and formed there an independent kingdom. Nimrod at the head of an army set out with the intention of punishing his rebellious general, but the latter routed him. Nimrod then became a vassal of Chedorlaomer, who involved him in the war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, with whom he was defeated by Abraham ("Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.; comp. Gen. xiv. 1-17). ….
[End of quote]
Let us now take a quote from Royce Erickson’s article (above), showing just how precise his new geography enables for things to be. I refer to his marvellous identification of the Elamite location of Awan (among others), most relevant to Kutur-Inshushinak (Chedorlaomer) who had ruled there (emphasis added):
….
All five of the most important historically important Elamite towns can be located in Anatolia: Susa, Madaktu, Hidalu, Awan and Anshan. Susa, the capital during the Neo-Assyrian period, and known to be the closest of these Elamite cities to Chaldaea and thence to Babylon and Assyria, is represented by Sis (Shishan) in Cilicia. Madaktu (Kayseri) and Hidalu (Kundullu) were described by the Assyrians as being in the distant Elamite hinterland from Susa. The equivalent modern sites of Kayseri and Kundullu agree with this description, being 90 miles to the north and 230 miles to the east of Kozan, modern Sis, respectively.
Awan was a very early Elamite capital well known to the Akkadian King Rimush about 2400 AD, who campaigned there. He described Awan as being separated from Susa (Sis) by 3 rivers. He pursued the King of Elam between the two cities and defeated his army by the “Middle River.” The modern Turkish town of Avanos is in fact the proposed site of Elamite Awan. It is separated from modern Kozan (Susa) by three north-south running rivers, the Goksu, Zamanti and Damas, over a total distance of 100 miles – a very good fit to Rimush’s narrative. ….
Comments