Amar-Sin misread as Bur-Sin was the third ruler of the Ur III Dynasty. He succeeded his father Shulgi, his name translates to'immortal moon-god'. Year-names are known for all nine years of his reign; these record campaigns conducted against Urbilum, several other regions with obscure names: Shashrum, Bitum-Rabium and Huhnuri. Amar-Sin is otherwise known to have campaigned against Elamite rulers such as Arwilukpi of Marhashi, the Ur Empire under his reign extended as far as the northern provinces of Lullubi and Hamazi, with their own governors, he suppressed a rebellion in Assur where he appointed an Akkadian governor, Zariqum as confirmed by his monumental inscription. Amar-Sin's reign is notable for his attempt at regenerating the ancient sites of Sumer, he worked on the unfinished ziggurat at Eridu. Eridu was abandoned during his reign. Salinity problems had made agricultural pursuits in this region unprofitable; the Babylonian Weidner Chronicle records the following: "Amar-Sin... changed the offerings of large oxen and sheep of the Akitu festival in Esagila.
It was foretold that he would die from goring by an ox, but he died from the'bite' of his shoe." Mashkan-shapir
Sumer is the earliest known civilization in the historical region of southern Mesopotamia, modern-day southern Iraq, during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages, one of the first civilizations in the world along with Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley. Living along the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, Sumerian farmers were able to grow an abundance of grain and other crops, the surplus of which enabled them to settle in one place. Prehistoric proto-writing dates back before 3000 BC; the earliest texts, from c. 3300 BC, come from the cities of Jemdet Nasr. Modern historians have suggested that Sumer was first permanently settled between c. 5500 and 4000 BC by a West Asian people who spoke the Sumerian language, an agglutinative language isolate. These prehistoric people are now called "proto-Euphrateans" or "Ubaidians", are theorized to have evolved from the Samarra culture of northern Mesopotamia; the Ubaidians, though never mentioned by the Sumerians themselves, are assumed by modern-day scholars to have been the first civilizing force in Sumer.
They drained the marshes for agriculture, developed trade, established industries, including weaving, metalwork and pottery. Some scholars contest the idea of a Proto-Euphratean language or one substrate language. Reliable historical records begin much later. Juris Zarins believes the Sumerians lived along the coast of Eastern Arabia, today's Persian Gulf region, before it was flooded at the end of the Ice Age. Sumerian civilization took form in the Uruk period, continuing into the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic periods. During the 3rd millennium BC, a close cultural symbiosis developed between the Sumerians, who spoke a language isolate, Akkadians, which gave rise to widespread bilingualism; the influence of Sumerian on Akkadian is evident in all areas, from lexical borrowing on a massive scale, to syntactic and phonological convergence. This has prompted scholars to refer to Sumerian and Akkadian in the 3rd millennium BC as a Sprachbund. Sumer was conquered by the Semitic-speaking kings of the Akkadian Empire around 2270 BC, but Sumerian continued as a sacred language.
Native Sumerian rule re-emerged for about a century in the Third Dynasty of Ur at 2100–2000 BC, but the Akkadian language remained in use. The Sumerian city of Eridu, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, is considered to have been one of the oldest cities, where three separate cultures may have fused: that of peasant Ubaidian farmers, living in mud-brick huts and practicing irrigation; the term Sumerian is the common name given to the ancient non-Semitic-speaking inhabitants of Mesopotamia by the East Semitic-speaking Akkadians. The Sumerians referred to themselves as ùĝ saĝ gíg ga, phonetically /uŋ saŋ ɡi ɡa/ meaning "the black-headed people", to their land as ki-en-gi, meaning "place of the noble lords"; the Akkadian word Shumer may represent the geographical name in dialect, but the phonological development leading to the Akkadian term šumerû is uncertain. Hebrew Shinar, Egyptian Sngr, Hittite Šanhar, all referring to southern Mesopotamia, could be western variants of Shumer. In the late 4th millennium BC, Sumer was divided into many independent city-states, which were divided by canals and boundary stones.
Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor or by a king, intimately tied to the city's religious rites. The five "first" cities, said to have exercised pre-dynastic kingship "before the flood": Eridu Bad-tibira Larsa Sippar Shuruppak Other principal cities: Minor cities: Kuara Zabala Kisurra Marad Dilbat Borsippa Kutha Der Eshnunna Nagar 2 Apart from Mari, which lies full 330 kilometres north-west of Agade, but, credited in the king list as having "exercised kingship" in the Early Dynastic II period, Nagar, an outpost, these cities are all in the Euphrates-Tigris alluvial plain, south of Baghdad in what are now the Bābil, Diyala, Wāsit, Dhi Qar, Basra, Al-Muthannā and Al-Qādisiyyah governorates of Iraq; the Sumerian city-states rose to power during the prehistoric Uruk periods. Sumerian written history reaches back to the 27th century BC and before, but the historical record remains obscure until the Early Dynastic III period, c. the 23rd century BC, when a now deciphered syllabary writing system was developed, which has allowed archaeologists to read contemporary records and inscriptions.
Classical Sumer ends with the rise of the Akkadian Empire in the 23rd century BC. Following the Gutian period, there was a brief Sumerian Renaissance in the 21st century BC, cut short in the 20th century BC by invasions by the Amorites; the Amorite "dynasty of Isin"
Babylonia was an ancient Akkadian-speaking state and cultural area based in central-southern Mesopotamia. A small Amorite-ruled state emerged in 1894 BC, which contained the minor administrative town of Babylon, it was a small provincial town during the Akkadian Empire but expanded during the reign of Hammurabi in the first half of the 18th century BC and became a major capital city. During the reign of Hammurabi and afterwards, Babylonia was called "the country of Akkad", a deliberate archaism in reference to the previous glory of the Akkadian Empire, it was involved in rivalry with the older state of Assyria to the north and Elam to the east in Ancient Iran. Babylonia became the major power in the region after Hammurabi created a short-lived empire, succeeding the earlier Akkadian Empire, Third Dynasty of Ur, Old Assyrian Empire; the Babylonian Empire, however fell apart after the death of Hammurabi and reverted to a small kingdom. Like Assyria, the Babylonian state retained the written Akkadian language for official use, despite its Northwest Semitic-speaking Amorite founders and Kassite successors, who spoke a language isolate, not being native Mesopotamians.
It retained the Sumerian language for religious use, but by the time Babylon was founded, this was no longer a spoken language, having been wholly subsumed by Akkadian. The earlier Akkadian and Sumerian traditions played a major role in Babylonian and Assyrian culture, the region would remain an important cultural center under its protracted periods of outside rule; the earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a clay tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad, dating back to the 23rd century BC. Babylon was a religious and cultural centre at this point and neither an independent state nor a large city. After the collapse of the Akkadian Empire, the south Mesopotamian region was dominated by the Gutian people for a few decades before the rise of the Third Dynasty of Ur, which restored order to the region and which, apart from northern Assyria, encompassed the whole of Mesopotamia, including the town of Babylon. Mesopotamia had enjoyed a long history prior to the emergence of Babylon, with Sumerian civilisation emerging in the region c. 3500 BC, the Akkadian-speaking people appearing by the 30th century BC.
During the 3rd millennium BC, an intimate cultural symbiosis occurred between Sumerian and Akkadian-speakers, which included widespread bilingualism. The influence of Sumerian on Akkadian and vice versa is evident in all areas, from lexical borrowing on a massive scale, to syntactic and phonological convergence; this has prompted scholars to refer to Sumerian and Akkadian in the third millennium as a sprachbund. Akkadian replaced Sumerian as the spoken language of Mesopotamia somewhere around the turn of the third and the second millennium BC. From c. 3500 BC until the rise of the Akkadian Empire in the 24th century BC, Mesopotamia had been dominated by Sumerian cities and city states, such as Ur, Uruk, Isin, Adab, Gasur, Hamazi, Akshak and Umma, although Semitic Akkadian names began to appear on the king lists of some of these states between the 29th and 25th centuries BC. Traditionally, the major religious center of all Mesopotamia was the city of Nippur where the god Enlil was supreme, it would remain so until replaced by Babylon during the reign of Hammurabi in the mid-18th century BC.
The Akkadian Empire saw the Akkadian Semites and Sumerians of Mesopotamia unite under one rule, the Akkadians attain ascendancy over the Sumerians and indeed come to dominate much of the ancient Near East. The empire disintegrated due to economic decline, climate change and civil war, followed by attacks by the Gutians from the Zagros Mountains. Sumer rose up again with the Third Dynasty of Ur in the late 22nd century BC, ejected the Gutians from southern Mesopotamia, they seem to have gained ascendancy over much of the territory of the Akkadian kings of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia for a time. Followed by the collapse of the Sumerian "Ur-III" dynasty at the hands of the Elamites in 2002 BC, the Amorites, a foreign Northwest Semitic-speaking people, began to migrate into southern Mesopotamia from the northern Levant gaining control over most of southern Mesopotamia, where they formed a series of small kingdoms, while the Assyrians reasserted their independence in the north; the states of the south were unable to stem the Amorite advance, for a time may have relied on their fellow Akkadians in Assyria for protection.
King Ilu-shuma of the Old Assyrian Empire in a known inscription describes his exploits to the south as follows: The freedom of the Akkadians and their children I established. I purified their copper. I established their freedom from the border of the marshes and Ur and Nippur and Kish, Der of the goddess Ishtar, as far as the City of. Past scholars extrapolated from this text that it means he defeated the invading Amorites to the south and Elamites to the east, but there is no explicit record of that, some scholars believe the Assyrian kings were giving preferential trade agreements to the south; these policies were continued by Ikunum. However, when Sargon I s
Battle of Siddim
The Battle of the Vale of Siddim often called the War of Nine Kings or the Slaughter of Chedorlaomer, was an event in the Hebrew Bible book of Genesis 14:1-17 that occurred in the days of Abram and Lot. The Vale of Siddim was the battleground for the cities of the Jordan River plain revolting against Mesopotamian rule. Whether this event occurred in history has been disputed by scholars. According to Ronald Hendel, "The current consensus is that there is little or no historical memory of pre-Israelite events in Genesis." The Book of Genesis explains that during the days of Lot, the vale of Siddim was a river valley where the Battle of Siddim occurred between four Mesopotamian armies and five cities of the Jordan plain. According to the biblical account, before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Elamite King Chedorlaomer had subdued the tribes and cities surrounding the Jordan River plain. After 13 years, four kings of the cities of the Jordan plain revolted against Chedorlaomer's rule.
In response and three other kings started a campaign against King Bera of Sodom and four other allied kings. The Vale of Siddim or Valley of Siddim is a biblical place name mentioned in the Book of Genesis Chapter 14:'And the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits'. Siddim is thought to be located on the southern end of the Dead Sea where modern bitumen deposits have been found in respect to the tar pits mentioned in Genesis 14:10; this scripture indicates that the valley was filled with many of these pits that the armies of Sodom and Gomorrah fell into during their retreat from Mesopotamian forces. It has been suggested by theologians that the destruction of the cities of the Jordan Plain by divine fire and brimstone may have caused Siddim to become a salt sea, what is now the Dead Sea; the Northern forces overwhelmed the Southern kings of the Jordan plain, driving some them into the asphalt or tar pits that littered the valley. Those who escaped fled including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were spoiled of their goods and provisions and some of their citizens were captured. Among the captives was Abraham's nephew, Lot; when word reached Abraham, he mounted a rescue operation, arming 318 of his trained servants, who went in pursuit of the enemy armies that were returning to their homelands. They caught up with them in the city of Dan, flanking the enemy on multiple sides during a night raid; the attack ran its course as far as Hobah, north of Damascus, where he defeated Chedorlaomer and his forces. Abram recovered all the goods the captives. After the battle, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine and blessed Abraham, who gave him a tenth of the plunder. Bera, king of Sodom, came to Abraham and thanked him, requesting that Abraham keep the plunder but return his people. Abraham declined, saying, "I swore I would never take anything from you, so you can never say'I have made Abraham rich.'" What Abraham accepted from Bera instead was food for his 318 men and his Amorite neighbors.
Amraphel has been thought by some scholars such as the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Jewish Encyclopaedia to be an alternate name of the famed Hammurabi. The name is associated with Ibal-pi-el II of Esnunna. Arioch has been thought to have been a king of Larsa, it has been suggested that it is URU KI, meaning "this place here". Following the discovery of documents written in the Elamite language and Babylonian language, it was thought that Chedorlaomer is a transliteration of the Elamite compound Kudur-Lagamar, meaning servant of Lagamaru - a reference to Lagamaru, an Elamite deity whose existence was mentioned by Ashurbanipal. However, no mention of an individual named. David Rohl identifies Chedorlaomer with an Elamite king named Kutir-Lagamar. Tidal has been considered to be a transliteration of Tudhaliya - either referring to the first king of the Hittite New Kingdom or the proto-Hittite king named Tudhaliya. With the former, the title king of Nations would refer to the allies of the Hittite kingdom such as the Ammurru and Mittani.
Al gives the sense of tribe rather than a kingdom. Hence td goyim, it was common practise for vassals/allies to accompany a powerful king during their conquests. For example, in a letter from about 1770 BC reporting a speech aimed at persuading the nomadic tribes to acknowledge the authority of Zimri-Lim of Mari: There is no king who can be mighty alone. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi the man of Babylon; the alliance of four states would have ruled over cities/countries that were spread over a wide area: from Elam at the extreme eastern end of the Fertile Crescent to Anatolia at the western edge of this region. Because of this, there is a limited range of time periods that match the Geopolitical context of Genesis 14. In this account, Chedorlaomer is described as the king to whom the cities of the plain pay tribute. Thus, Elam must be a dominant force in the region and the other three kings would therefore be vassals of Elam and/or trading partners. There were periods when Elam was allied with Mari thr
Elam was an ancient Pre-Iranian civilization centered in the far west and southwest of what is now modern-day Iran, stretching from the lowlands of what is now Khuzestan and Ilam Province as well as a small part of southern Iraq. The modern name Elam stems from the Sumerian transliteration elam, along with the Akkadian elamtu, the Elamite haltamti. Elamite states were among the leading political forces of the Ancient Near East. In classical literature Elam was known as Susiana, a name derived from its capital Susa. Elam was part of the early urbanization during the Chalcolithic period; the emergence of written records from around 3000 BC parallels Sumerian history, where earlier records have been found. In the Old Elamite period, Elam consisted of kingdoms on the Iranian plateau, centered in Anshan, from the mid-2nd millennium BC, it was centered in Susa in the Khuzestan lowlands, its culture played a crucial role during the Persian Achaemenid dynasty that succeeded Elam, when the Elamite language remained among those in official use.
Elamite is considered a language isolate unrelated to the much arriving Persian and Iranic languages. In accordance with geographical and archaeological matches, some historians argue that the Elamites comprise a large portion of the ancestors of the modern day Lurs, whose language, split from Middle Persian; the Elamite language endonym of Elam as a country appears to have been Haltamti. Exonyms included the Sumerian names NIM. MAki and ELAM, the Akkadian Elamû and Elamītu meant "resident of Susiana, Elamite". In prehistory, Elam was centered in modern Khuzestān and Ilam; the name Khuzestān is derived from the Old Persian Hūjiya meaning Susa/Elam. In Middle Persian this became Huź "Susiana", in modern Persian Xuz, compounded with the toponymic suffix -stån "place". In geographical terms, Susiana represents the Iranian province of Khuzestan around the river Karun. In ancient times, several names were used to describe this area; the great ancient geographer Ptolemy was the earliest to call the area Susiana, referring to the country around Susa.
Another ancient geographer, viewed Elam and Susiana as two different geographical regions. He referred to Elam as the highland area of Khuzestan. Disagreements over the location exist in the Jewish historical sources says Daniel T. Potts; some ancient sources draw a distinction between Elam as the highland area of Khuzestan, Susiana as the lowland area. Yet in other ancient sources'Elam' and'Susiana' seem equivalent; the uncertainty in this area extends to modern scholarship. Since the discovery of ancient Anshan, the realization of its great importance in Elamite history, the definitions were changed again; some modern scholars argued that the centre of Elam lay at Anshan and in the highlands around it, not at Susa in lowland Khuzistan. Potts disagrees suggesting that the term'Elam' was constructed by the Mesopotamians to describe the area in general terms, without referring either to the lowlanders or the highlanders, "Elam is not an Iranian term and has no relationship to the conception which the peoples of highland Iran had of themselves.
They were Anshanites, Shimashkians, Sherihumians, etc. That Anshan played a leading role in the political affairs of the various highland groups inhabiting southwestern Iran is clear, but to argue that Anshan is coterminous with Elam is to misunderstand the artificiality and indeed the alienness of Elam as a construct imposed from without on the peoples of the southwestern highlands of the Zagros mountain range, the coast of Fars and the alluvial plain drained by the Karun-Karkheh river system. Knowledge of Elamite history remains fragmentary, reconstruction being based on Mesopotamian sources; the history of Elam is conventionally divided into three periods. The period before the first Elamite period is known as the proto-Elamite period: Proto-Elamite: c. 3200 – c. 2700 BC Old Elamite period: c. 2700 – c. 1500 BC Middle Elamite period: c. 1500 – c. 1100 BC Neo-Elamite period: c. 1100 – 540 BC Proto-Elamite civilization grew up east of the Tigris and Euphrates alluvial plains. At least three proto-Elamite states merged to form Elam: Anshan and Shimashki.
References to Awan are older than those to Anshan, some scholars suggest that both states encompassed the same territory, in different eras. To this core Shushiana was broken off. In addition, some Proto-Elamite sites are found well outside this area, spread out on the Iranian plateau; the state of Elam was formed from these lesser states as a response to invasion from Sumer during the Old Elamite period. Elamite strength was based on an ability to hold these various areas together under a coordinated government that permitted the maximum interchange of the natural resources unique to each region. Traditionally, thi
Abraham in History and Tradition
This article presents information about the John Van Seters book. Abraham in History and Tradition is a book by biblical scholar John Van Seters; the book is divided into Abraham in History and Abraham in Tradition. In Part I, Van Seters argues that there is no unambiguous evidence pointing to an origin for the stories in the 2nd millennium BC. "Arguments based on reconstructing the patriarch's nomadic way of life, the personal names in Genesis, the social customs reflected in the stories, correlation of the traditions of Genesis with the archaeological data of the Middle Bronze Age have all been found, in Part One above, to be quite defective in demonstrating an origin for the Abraham tradition in the second millennium B. C.". This finding has implications for certain then-current strands in Biblical criticism: "Consequently, without any such effective historical controls on the tradition one cannot use any part of it in an attempt to reconstruct the primitive period of Israelite history. Furthermore, a vague presupposition about the antiquity of the tradition based upon a consensus approval of such arguments should no longer be used as a warrant for proposing a history of the tradition related to early premonarchic times."Part II forms a critique of "tradition-history" or "tradition-analysis", the theory current at the time that Genesis retained traces of oral traditions dating from the 2nd millennium.
"There is no way of deciding when oral narrative forms or motifs became associated with a particular person such as Abraham, it could well have happened in every case when the story was first put in written form. The results of the literary examination of the Abraham tradition, in Part Two, would suggest that oral forms and motifs are confined to a rather small part of the tradition." The book was a landmark in Near Eastern Studies and Biblical archaeology, since it challenged the dominant view, popularised by William Foxwell Albright, that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis can be identified on archaeological grounds with the Mesopotamian world of 2nd millennium BC. Van Seters noted that many of Albright's parallels were vague, fit other regions than Mesopotamia and other times than 2nd millennium. Specially severe was his analysis of Genesis 14, where he pointed out that the political situation described in Genesis 14 - a Near East dominated by a coalition led by Elam and including Hatti and Babylonia - is not confirmed by any monuments, king lists, or other historical and archaeological sources.
Van Seters pointed out that the ten kings mentioned in Genesis 14 cannot be found in any ancient documents outside the Bible. The book was a criticism of the school of Tradition history advanced most notably by Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth: Van Seters "argues that Noth's idea of a "pentateuchal oral tradition" is flawed both and analogically contends that traces of folkloric structure do not make it inevitable'that the tradition as a whole, or parts of it, derive from a pre-literate period'". Van Seters instead proposed that Genesis was an literary work, but one based on a process of supplementation by successive authors rather on a redactorial process; this in turn amounted to a major challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis, the dominant theory concerning the origins of the Pentateuch. At the time Van Seters published "Abraham in History and Tradition" the dominant scholarly theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch was the Documentary Hypothesis; this held that the books of the Torah, including the Genesis accounts of Abraham and the Patriarchs, were based on four independent sources.
Each of these was a complete document in itself, dating from between the 10th and 7th centuries BC and combined into the final work by a Redactor in the Persian period, c.450 BC. Van Seters retained the idea of source documents but dropped the idea of a redactor, which meant dropping the documentary model itself. In its place he adopted a supplemental model, "a successive supplementation of one source or author by another," in which a Yahwist working in the period of the Babylonian exile was the major but not the final author of Genesis. Van Seter's schema is as follows: i. Pre-Yahwistic first stage: 12:1, 4a, 6a, 7, 10-20; these represent a small unified work with a brief framework. Ii. Pre-Yahwistic second stage: 20:1-17; this represents one unified story that came after the adventure in Egypt, to which it was added. It was subsequently transposed to its present position by the Yahwist. Ia as a transition. Yahwist:a. brief secondary additions to previous works: 12:2-3, 6b, c8-9. All incorporated with some new arrangement of the materials.iv.
Priestly:a. secondary genealogical and chronological additions: 11:26-32. B. larger episodic units: chaps. 17 and 23.v. Post-Priestly: chap. 14. A celebrated scholarly argument ensued between Van Seters and Rolf Rendtorff over the role and existence of the redactors, Van Seters arguing that they did not exist and his followers arguing that they were essential
David Michael Rohl is a British Egyptologist and former director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences who from the 1980s has put forward several unconventional theories revising the chronology of Ancient Egypt and Israel to form an alternative new chronology. He lives in the Marina Alta, Spain. Rohl traces his fascination with ancient Egypt to a visit to that country at the age of nine, which featured a journey on the Nile on King Farouk's paddle-steamer, he first worked as a rock musician, forming a band in 1968, signed by Vertigo, but split up after Vertigo rejected the finished product. In 1969/70 Rohl completed an Institute of Incorporated Photographers degree at the University of Manchester, before forming a new group, which released two albums and The Eye of Wendor. About 1974, Rohl started work as a sound engineer becoming chief engineer at Strawberry Studios, the Stockport home of the group 10cc. Royalties from four solo artist and composing recording contracts enabled him to retire from music and focus on Egyptology, in particular to develop the New Chronology which he had been working on for five years during his music career.
In 1985 Rohl became the first Director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, editor of its Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum from 1986. In 1988 he was accepted by University College and awarded the prestigious W. F. Masom History Research Scholarship by the University of London as well as being awarded a BA in Ancient History and Egyptology in 1990, he is a past President of the Sussex Egyptology Society and edited The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. The publication of his book, A Test of Time led to his role in a three-part television documentary, "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest", which appeared late summer 1995 on Channel 4 in the UK, spring 1996 on The Learning Channel/Discovery in the USA. Following a thirty-year break from music composition and production, Rohl reformed a new incarnation of Mandalaband to release the first album of a two-part progressive rock concept work, BC - Ancestors, in 2009, followed by its partner album, AD - Sangreal, in 2011.
BC - Ancestors follows the Old Testament story of humanity from the Garden of Eden through to the birth of the Roman Empire. According to the 2015 documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, in which Rohl discusses his research about the New Chronology of the ancient near east, David Rohl is agnostic; the New Chronology is an unconventional revised chronology of the ancient Near East created by Rohl. It involves a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties. Rohl asserts that the New Chronology allows scholars to identify some of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds; the New Chronology has not gained acceptance among most Egyptologists. In addition to his theories on Egypt, Rohl has put forth other theories related to the Old Testament. In his published work, Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation, he posits a location for the legendary Garden of Eden in Iranian Azerbaijan, in the vicinity of Tabriz upon which the Genesis tradition was based.
According to Rohl, the Garden of Eden was located in a long valley to the north of Sahand volcano, near Tabriz. He cites several geographical similarities and toponyms which he believes match the biblical description; these similarities include: the nearby headwaters of the four rivers of Eden, the Tigris, Gaihun-Aras, Uizun. In the same work, he develops a local flood theory for the Genesis Flood, positing that the biblical reference to the covering of "all the high mountains" is a description of the flooding of cities in the plains of Mesopotamia on the basis that the Hebrew word'har' does not just mean'mountain' but also'hill' and'city mound'. In his book From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible, Eric H. Cline, writing about Rohl's suggestion for the location of Eden, says "his suggestions have not caught on with the scholarly establishment, his argument is not helped by the fact that it depends upon speculations regarding the transmission of place-names for both the various rivers and nearby related areas from antiquity to the present.
In the end, while Rohl’s suggestion is not out of the question, it seems no more probable than any other hypothesis, less than those suggested by Speiser and Sauer." Rohl, David. A Test of Time: The Bible—from Myth to History. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-5913-7. Published in the US as ———. Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 0-517-70315-7. ———. Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-7747-X. ———. The Lost Testament: From Eden to Exile—The Five-Thousand-Year History of the People of the Bible. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-6993-0. Published in paperback as ———. From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible. London: Arrow Books Ltd. ISBN 0-09-941566-6. ———. The Lords of Avaris: Uncovering the Legendary Origins of Western Civilisation. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-7762-3. ———. Exodus: Myth or History?. St. Louis Park, MN: Thinking Man Media. ISBN 9780986431029. Pharaohs and Kings A Biblical Quest. Bethesda, MD: Discovery Channel Video. 1995.
OCLC 34710041. Three-part documentary shown 1995 on