518 
NATURE 
[SEPTEMBER 25, 1902 
Babylonian monuments” (p. 34). Now, as the “ Chedor- 
laomer” myth was long ago exploded by King (“ Letters 
and Inscriptions of Hammurabi,” vol. i. p. xxv.), there is 
no longer any question about this matter, at any rate so 
far as the tablets that have been discovered up to the 
present time show. Noticeable, also, is the translation 
of “ Ya’aqob-el” and “ Yoseph-el” as “ Jacob-god” and 
“‘Joseph-god” (p. 42), which is misleading to the general 
reader, and almost seems to betray in the author an 
ignorance of the meaning of these names. Further, 
“Moriah” is hardly likely to be the equivalent of the 
Sumerian MAR.TU (p. 16). 
In this book we again meet with the “ Arabian- 
Musri” theory, though even its supporters do. not seem 
to be very certain as to where they intend to fix the 
position of their hypothetical Musri. Even in the two 
maps where it is marked the position assigned to it is 
not the same in the one as in the other, and it has there- 
fore apparently been given what is known mathematically 
as a Jocus in which its position varies, at one time shifting 
perilously near the borders of the southern Musri, ze. 
Egypt (pp. 157 and 200). Since this so-called “ epoch- 
making” theory has now begun to be reproduced in 
popular works, it is but right that the arguments on 
which its supporters rely should be examined in detail. 
In 1893! Dr. Winckler published a theory that in 
addition to the two countries called in the Assyrian 
inscriptions Musri (Egypt and part of Northern Syria) 
there existed a third in Northern Arabia, and since then 
he has adduced a number of arguments in order to 
support this theory, both from the Assyrian and Himy- 
aritic inscriptions. Among German scholars it has 
received little encouragement, but in England Dr, 
Winckler has been fortunate in finding an eloquent and 
receptive advocate in Prof. Cheyne, who has given it his 
sanction in the ‘‘ Encyclopedia Biblica.”* Since a 
popular handbook has absorbed and given credence to 
what is considered by the majority of critics to be a 
doubtful question, to say the least of it, it will be as well 
to state Dr. Winckler’s arguments servzatim, in order that 
we may see how far they bear out his case. They may 
be briefly enumerated as follows :— 
(1) Tiglath Pileser III. appointed a certain Idib?ilu to 
be £ipfu over Musri,® and this Idibiilu is mentioned 
elsewhere in the inscriptions of the same king,* where he 
is called *‘ Idib’ilu of Arubu” (z.e. Arabia). Hence, Dr. 
Winckler says that Musri cannot mean Egypt here, but 
is a country in Northern Arabia, apparently simply 
because Idibiilu was an Arab. Now there seems to be 
no reason for translating Musri as anything else than 
Egypt, for the Assyrians at this period were pushing 
their dominions rapidly down through Palestine. 
Further, we are not told that Tiglath Pileser conquered 
Egypt, but only that he appointed an Arabian sheikh as 
Apu (an officer whose duties were obviously to watch the 
marches), a most natural and proper person for this pur- 
pose. So the new Musri theory receives no support from 
the first hypothesis. 
(2) Yamani,° the leader of the revolt in Ashdod, flees 
= Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 24. 
2 ili. 3161. 
3 Annads, |, 226, &c.; Winckler, Altor. Forsch., i. 25- 
4 Annals, |. 240 
5 Winckler, Sargon, Pr. 1. 102; Alton. Forsch., i. 27- 
NO. 1717, VOL. 66] 
before the approach of Sargon ana ite (mdtu) Musuri sa 
pat (métu) Meluhha, i.e. to the side of Musuri which 
borders on Melubha.! 
If Meluhha be “Sinai, Midian,” as Dr. Winckler at 
first supposed,” there is no reason to assume that Musuri 
is a country lying to the east of this district, for if Musuri 
be translated “Egypt,” such an identification entirely 
agrees with the Assyrian geographical description of the 
southern Musri. Besides, the most natural route for 
Yamani, who was fleeing from Ashdod before the 
Assyrian army advancing through Palestine from the 
north, led straight into Egypt, and not into Arabia, 
directly across the enemy’s line of advance. 
(3) Dr. Winckler argues that the Pir’u (spelt with the 
determinative prefix of persons and not officials) men- 
tioned in the Assyrian texts ° is not Pharaoh, as Schrader 
supposed, but the proper name of a sheikh of his North 
Arabian Musri, since he is once spoken of as malku. 
But Pir’u is certainly called Savru in the same inscrip- 
tion, so this cannot be considered of any great importance. 
It was about this time that the Assyrians of the later 
Empire were coming into actual contact with the 
Southern Musri. Tiglath Pileser III., who pressed as 
far as its borders, mentions no king by name, but 
Sargon speaks of its king as Pir’u, evidently understand- 
ing it as a proper name. Now, we have an exact parallel 
to this in the Old Testament, where the Hebrews first 
speak of the King of Egypt as Pharaoh, evidently 
understanding it as a proper name, but later mention 
him either by name (Shishak), or with the addi- 
tion of the royal title (Pharaoh-Necho, Pharaoh- 
Hophra), Further, in the last of the three texts 
quoted below in note *, there is surely no doubt that 
Haziti is Gaza, Rapihi is Raphia, and Sib’i is So(=Sewe); 
and, these being granted, there is little to be gained by 
inventing an Arabian Musuri, when ‘“‘ Egypt” is the 
obvious explanation of the name. From this third line 
of argument, therefore, the new theory obtains no 
support. 
(4) In the account of Sennacherib’s battle at Eltekeh, 
1 It is doubtful whether any such meaning as “included in” or ‘‘ belong- 
ing to” can be safely attached here to Sa Jaf. Dr. Winckler’s additional 
examples carry no weight (footnote, AOF, i. 27); the first, ‘‘ Aphek im 
gebiete der provinz Samaria," rests on a misreading of Sameri[na] for 
Samena .. ., or much less probably Sameru. . . . This name was copied 
Samena ... by Dr. Budge in his Esarhaddon, 1880, p. 119, in correction 
of W. A. I., iii. and TSBA, iv., but this correction is totally ignored by 
Winckler (Untersuchungen, 1889, p- 98), who repeats the old mistake 
Samerina, and apparently did not recognise it until his publication of 
Musri, Melukha, Ma‘in (1898, p. 8). Dr. Budge's translation, ‘‘ Aphek, 
which borders on the country of Samena,”’ still holds good, inasmuch as no 
suitable identification for Samena has been suggested (Winckler’s later 
suggestion, S/iseon, being doubtful). Even if it were Samaria, the trans- 
lation “ On the borders of Samaria” would quite agree with the geographical 
position of Aphek. His second example is “ Pillatu Sa pat Ilamti Tigl. 14 
(i R67)” (read ‘‘ Pillutu Sa patti Ilamti Tigl. 14 (ii R 67)”). As we do not 
know the exact locality of Pillutu, it is impossible to base any theories on 
the meaning of Sa fat here, for the city in question may have been on the 
border of Elam. 
2 Altor. Forsch., i. 27. We shall refer to Dr. Winckler's later theory that 
Melubha =Yaman further on. 
33Musri, Meluhga, Ma‘in, 1808, p. 2. Cf. (a) ‘ Philistia, Judah, Edom 
and Moab . . . had brought presents to Pir'u, king (Sa) of Musri, a chief 
(malku) who could not save them.” (b) “ Of Pir’, king of Musuri, Samsi, 
queen of Aribbi It’amra of Saba'ai, kings of the side of the sea and the 
desert .. . their tribute I received.” (c) ‘‘ Hanunu, king of Baziti, with 
Sib’i the tartan of Musuri to the city of Rapihito battle came against me ; 
their defeat I accomplished. Sib'i feared the clash of my weapons and fled 
away, and his place was no more seen. Hanunu, king of Haziti, in hand I 
captured. The tribute of Pir'u,” &c. 
<I 
