> some scholars suggest that the mentions of aramaeans in the old testament, in particular in the pentateuch, are anachronistic. there, for example, abraham is referred to as 'the wandering aramaean' [deuteronomy 26:5]. we also find amorites occurring in the mari texts (c.1800) whose nomenclature closely resembles that of the patriarchal period familiar to us from the old testament. the term 'sutu' (sutean) is also attested in the mari archive > an interesting theory regarding the origins of the amorites was proposed by clay in 1919. according to him, the name 'uru' appears to be associated with the principal early deity of the 'am-urru'; he then goes on to assert that the ancient mesopotamian city of ur was named after this deity. in aramaic the name 'amurru' is written 'uru' and is identical to the writing of the city name of 'ur'. the logic of his argument continues with the biblical story of abraham's links to that city and hence the amorite origins of the patriarchs. the name uru-shalim would also have a satisfactory explanation in the context of an amorite/jebusite kingdom in the judean hills. the early god of amurru was also, according to clay, variously called el-ur/amar/mar of which the first gives us another obvious patriarchal link and the last the name of the city of mari the amorites were not native to canaan as the torah writers would have you believe. they originated near the persian gulf and migrated to caanan due to some sort of catastrophe. probably the same one that buried southern arabian cities in the desert and dried up lakes and also caused abandonment or the indus civilization and inspired the biblical story of sodom and gomorrah since sodom was called sittim, the plural semitic suffix implies two cities. the sitt implies sutean. gomorrah was amorrah (amurru), the amorite capital and the amorites obviously survived and lived just fine.
Brazil