including the city of Babylon, but this may have been an
extension of the meaning of the name similar to that of which Canaan is
an instance.

Unless Sumer and Shinar are the same words, outside the Old Testament
there is only one Shinar known to ancient geography. That was in
Mesopotamia. The Greek geographers called it Singara (now Sinjar), an
oasis in the midst of deserts, and formed by an isolated mountain tract
abounding in springs. It is already mentioned in the annals of the
Egyptian conqueror Thothmes III. In his thirty-third year (B.C. 1470),
the king of Sangar sent him tribute consisting of lapis-lazuli "of
Babylon," and of various objects carved out of it. From Sangar also
horses were exported into Egypt, and in one of the Tel el-Amarna
letters, the king of Alasiya in Northern Syria writes to the
Pharaoh,--"Do not set me with the king of the Hittites and the king of
Sankhar; whatever gifts they have sent to me I will restore to thee
twofold." In hieroglyphic and cuneiform spelling, Sangar and Sankhar are
the exact equivalents of the Hebrew Shinar.

How the name of Shinar came to be transferred from Mesopotamia to
Babylonia is a puzzle. The Mesopotamian Shinar is nowhere near the
Babylonian frontier. It lies in a straight line westward of Mosul and
the ancient Nineveh, and not far from the banks of the Khabur. Can its
application to Babylonia be due to a confusion between Sumer and Sangar?

Whatever the explanation may be, it is clear that the position of the
kingdom of Amraphel is by no means so easily determined as has hitherto
been supposed. It may be Sumer or Southern Babylonia; it may be Northern
Babylonia with its capital Babylon; or again, it may be the Mesopotamian
oasis of Sinjar. Until we find the name of Amraphel in the cuneiform
texts it is impossible to attain certainty.

There is one fact, however, which seems to indicate that it really is
either Sumer or Northern Babylonia that is meant. The narrative of
Chedor-laomer's campaign begins with the words that it took place "in
the time of Amraphel, king of Shinar." Chedor-laomer the Elamite was the
leader of the expedition; he too was the suzerain lord of his allies;
and nevertheless the campaign is dated, not in his reign, but in that of
one of the subject kings. That the narrative has been taken from the
Babylonian annals there is little room for doubt, and consequently it
would follow from the dating that Amraphel was a Babylonian prince,
per