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

I. 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).

II. 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.

III. The Sumerians.

A. 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 [http://biblegateway/wiki/Ziggurat, Ziggurrat 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.

B. 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.

IV. History.

A. 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.

B. 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.

C. 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.

V. 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).