Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / History C‑class
WikiProject iconAmorites has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Amorite (Egyptian Amurri, Assyrian Amurra or Martu (where? how are these confident identifications arrived at?) is a term (terms should be in quotes) given by the Israelites to the greatest portion (who else then is involved?) of earlier (earlier? than the arrival of the Hebrews probably) highland mountaineer, or hillmen, descendants of Canaan (Gen. 14:7) who inhabited that land. (is this mythic genealogy or ethography or geography or what?) In early Babylonian inscriptions all western lands including Syria and Palestine, were known as "the land of the Amorites." (this could make a good opening statement, if we knew what "early" means) The Amorites were warlike mountain people. They are represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, (fair skins and blue eyes on "the Egyptian monuments"?) aquiline noses, and pointed beards. (but what are they wearing? but what are they doing? are they prisoners? are they bringing tribute? to whom? Middle Kingdom?) In the Bible, (it's not a book, it's a library) they are supposed (who is doing the supposing? described as? pictured as?) to have been a powerful people of great stature "like the height of the cedars," (good quotes need sources) who had occupied the land east and west of the Jordan river; their king, Og, being described as the last "of the remnant of the giants" (so was the ancestral Canaan a giant?) (Deut. 3:11). What's the actual information here? How does one edit this material? Is anyone else interested? Wetman 03:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, see the original version of this page at It looks like the original source is probably Eaton's. RickK 03:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've now Googled Amurru on Image mode and discovered a cast of a bas-relief at the British Museum that was represented in Wikipedia's text "Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses, and pointed beards", apparently quoted from Roy Norvill, Giants: The Vanqished Race of Mighty Men Googling Norvill I discover that his fans consider him "an expert in the Hermetic code." This deleted text, I discover, was added 00:09, 5 Jan 2004 by User:Zestauferov --Wetman 05:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really crying out for some updating - Middle Eastern archaeology has changed a lot since 1911! The undue focus on the Bible, in particular, is ridiculous considering their much greater importance in Mesopotamian history. But that will take work... I'll see what I can find about Amorite language, anyway. - Mustafaa 05:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Major improvements[edit]

Sorry I was so emphatic in April, but this is much better, thanks to User:Mustafaa and User:Jallan. If the Jewish Encyclopedia material has been selectively used, the broad hint at the link could be dropped:

In Cappadocian Zinčirli inscriptions he is called ì-li a-bi-a 'the god of my father We need to know whose inscription, because this alone doesn't transmit information. Approx. date?

represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses and Blue eyes, eh? okay, we get the race implication, but since males are rendered as dark skinned, females as pale in Egyptian conventions, I just doubt the whole thing (Eaton's 1897?). Are there any Amorites illustrated on an Egyptian relief anywhere on the Web to point at?

The god Amurru was identified with the constellation Perseus. With the rest so improved, this passive of non-attribution sticks out worse than ever. Paleoastronomy anyone? ---Wetman 22:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Amurru & The Amorites[edit]

Were these people Semites or Hamites?

Genesis chapter 10 gives the lineage of Ham, father of Cush, father of Nimrod. Gen.10: 8-12 talks about Nimrod and his descendants. Nimrod established Babylon and Akkad (Accad).

Nimrod was called a "mighty hunter". This supports the theory that they were not peaceful pastoralists.

To call them "Semitic speaking" is nothing but anti-black bias. They were Hamitic people, this should be noted, and changed to they were "Hamitic speaking". The Akkadians, because they were merchants, invented a system of writing to help record business transactions. So these Cushite, Hamitic people were instrumental in developing the alphabet and written words.Kzlion (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quoting the article:

"Though herdsmen, the Amorites were not peaceful pastoralists. They were fierce tribal clansmen who apparently forced themselves into lands they needed to graze their herds. At first the Amorites were merely a regular irritant to the Ur-III empire, but eventually they undermined it to such an extent that the position of last king Ibbi-Sin was weakened to the point that his Elamite subjects were able to over throw his rule."

"Amurru also has storm god features. Like Adad he bears the epithet ramān 'thunderer' and he is even called bāriqu 'hurler of the thunderbolt' and Adad ša a-bu-be 'Adad of the deluge'. Yet his iconography is distinct from that of Adad and he sometimes appears along side Adad with a baton of power or throwstick while Adad bears a conventional thunderbolt."

Clearly the Amorites were quite the conquerers as well as shepards and it would seem that their suspected god Amurru was empowered as such, to conquer.

Now for my additions. I've also read that Amurru was described as the leveler of cities and destroyer of peoples. Could it be that for the Amorites, he was a god that both enabled them in battle/conquest as well brought them a good flock. It's possible that both his Adad-like epithets, and his baton of power or throwstick personified him as a conquerer as well as a shepard. It's possible, mind you, it's merely speculation.


Although it was long thought that the Amorites invaded the Third Dynasty of Ur, Assyriologists today largely doubt that claim. Much new archaeological and documentary evidence has come to light that showed that enclaves of Amorites existed in various parts of Ur and contributed to the kingdom.

The Amorites were not a clearly dilineated group of people nor were they conquerors at all. There was no concerted invasion from the Syrian desert. Rather, in some parts of the kingdom groups of Amorites simply asserted power in their local residences; the same was happening all over the region, and not just by groups labeled Amorites. The kingdom was already dissintegrating, and as centralized power slowly collapsed, many areas began to reassert independence. I feel that it is relevant to note this new scholarship, and so I have edited the article somewhat. --KTN

Blind linking: why shuffle the cards under the table?[edit]

Can we get a much clearer re-editing of the information currently concealed in the following text in the article:

The [[Bible|Biblical]] usage appears to show that the more specific "Amorite" and less precise general "[[Canaanite]]" terms were used synonymously, the former being characteristic of [[Jahwist|Judaean]], the latter of [[Elohist|Ephraimite]] and [[deuteronomist|Deuteronomic]] writers as well as the [[Assyria|Assyro]]-[[Babylonia]]ns.

It may take a longer paragraph to disentangle these secret identifications. --Wetman 05:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted the section as it's not based on the work of any historians (apparently just someone's personal interpretation of the bible. More seriously, the entire article seems to be based on a book published on 1934, with a little from Roux's 1980 book - pretty thin! PiCo 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amorite = MarTu = who said?[edit]

Everywhere I go on the internet I find references to the Amorites as the inhabitants fo Mari sourced from wikipedia. I thought to myself, how does a name from the Bible of an insignificant tribe in Western Canaan suddenly become associated with a major nation east of the Euphrates? Is this another Hitites = Hattians thing which is comfortable for religious fundamentalists to find proofs in anything they can from the past? All I want to know is who made the connection first and why. Can anyone put this in the article please, and if not then perhaps it would be best to separate out one from the other and make two distinct articles one about the biblical amorites and one about the Akkadian inhabitants of Mari. How about it? (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jewish Encyclopedia clearly states that the identification fo MarTu with biblical Amorites is accidental and unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remarks about supposedly Indo-European Amorites also seem a bit out of place. I doubt any modern scholar would take them seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Amorites: Hejaz to the Levant 2500BC-1200BC[edit]

Tracing the Amorites migration from Hejaz to the Levant.

The West Arabian Amorites sprung out Arabia in waves of tribal federations roaming the desert/semidesert region between the Euphrates in the west and the Mediterrianean sea in the East. They were restricted from Mesopotamia by their Eastern Arabian kinsmen, the Akkadians. The Amorites of the Nroth will settle the highlands and later fall under Hittie influence, after the fall of the Hittites they will emerge as the highlanders (Armeans). The Amorites of Western Canaan will establish the coastal Canaanite towns that will later evolve into Phoenicia and Philistia. The third group of the Amorites were the East Cannanites (lowlanders) concentrated along the Euphrates, mainly following the water and pasture in the midwest Euphrates region. The Meso-Akkadians regarded the Amorites as an uncivilized unproductive group because they didn't have a harvest they can loot or a town to sack to supply their growing empire. To them the Amorites were troublesome Nomadic shepherds a people with no submission and no house in a lifetime! The Amorites viewed the Akkadians as the oppressive imperial power that controlled their only source for survival; the Euphrates water and the needed pasture for their livestock. This Mesopotamian animosity between the Akkadians and Amorites will give birth to the Zodiac as we know it. THe Amorites marked their age with the fall of the Akkadian empire 2160BC (the Akkadian Bull) and the start of the Shepherds age (The Ram). At this point The Zodiac was still two ages and will later become divided into 12 astrological ages once the Amorites enter Babylon. By the 20th Century BC the Amoires were already established in mid-Mesopotamia and started sacking the Neo-Sumerian towns; eventually conquering Babylon, making it their capital in 1959BC. UR survived another 9 years, until it was taken by the Elamites. The Amorites established their authority as he absolute Arabian/Semitic dynasty by crushing the Elamites, starting the Old Babylonian Kingdom. Hammurabi receiving he laws from the sun god. With the death of Hammurabi The Kingdom disintegrated into smaller city states ruled by weak kings. Babylon proper survived for another 100 years. In 1659BC the technologically advanced Hitties conquered Babylon. 1659BC - 1648BC: After the fall of Babylon, the Amorite dialect disappeared from Babylon and was replaced by an Assyro-Akkadian dialect interrupting the gap between Old and Neo-Babylonian and clearly shows that the East-Canaanites disappeared from Mesopotamia. 1649BC: The Amorites conquered Egypt, starting the 15th dynasty. The Amorites will control Egypt for 108 years as the elite class in Egypt. The Amorite Hyksos ruled Egypt for 108 years. However, the Egyptian-born Amorites lacked what their Nomadic ancestors had three generations earlier. By the 1540s BC the East Canaanite Amorites (Hyksos) lost control of Egypt and sensed the danger of remaining in Egypt after the atrocities the first generation commited in Egypt, so they escaped to Sinai fleeing the angry Egyptians. The Hykso escape from Egypt is very similar to the later Judean biblical folkore (the Exodus). In Against Apion, the 1st century historian Josephus simply equates the ProtoHebrews with the Hyksos. In the three centuries between the Exodus and the appearance of the Hebrews. The Egyptians documented raids by Semitic tribes into Canaan. The Egyptians knew them as the HABIRU this group included the remains of the Hyksos and the Pre-Hyksos East Canaanites who remained in Souther Canaan. The Egyptian and Hittite Imperial powers will clash in Kadesh 1274BC The treaty of Kadesh was the beginning of the end of the Imperial influence in Canaan. The power vacuum of the 1200s in Canaan allowed the Phoenician and Philistinian Arabian/Semitic cultures to flourish on their own. Taking advantage of the Egyptian absence, the Hebrews moved into Central Canaan pushing into the Egyptian protected Philistia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)"... Maybe so, but where? It seems to have been added to this page on March 14, by a different account. As for its content, it's total WP:OR without any sources better than a You-Tube video. What a waste of talk page space. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Biblical "About Jerusalem (your father/mother)" section[edit]

The two verses from Ezekiel saying "Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite" should be excluded because Wikipedia is not Google. The two verses do not have any context present and do not contribute to any other part of the article. Although I assume that the person that originally put those in there was probably not just trying to make "yo momma" jokes, the only other apparent reason why those verses were included to begin is that the Amorites are just mentioned in those verses. This is a poor reason, every mention of the Amorites is not in the article, nor should it be, just a summary of their prescence in the Bible is necessary. It is not simply that I find it uninteresting, it is that it really has no relevance to the article at all. If anyone cannot give an actual reason to include it, it should be deleted, or else we need to go to the article on sheep and put in a whole new section just to include Exodus 22:19 and Revelation 19:7. We may also want to include Genesis 7 in every article on animals. So, does anyone have an real reason to include the Yo daddy section that doesn't justify including those other verses in other articles, or is it OK to delete it now? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section should not be deleted, though it does need clean-up. A section on the Biblical view towards Amorites, or how Amorites are portrayed in the Bible, is completely relevant, as this is actually one of the few views we do have of them. The quote is also relevant in this context. What you cannot justify is why this information should be suppressed or censored according to your personal biases. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, to clarify, I never said it was uninteresting, I said it was it was not relevent. Just as something being uninteresting is no reason for deletion, something interesting is not a reason for inclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything that gives a viewpoint on the "Amorites" is by definition relevant. What definition of "relevant" are you using? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does "your father was an Amorite" give a view point on the Amorites? The verses are simply thrown in without any context. They are mentioned off-hand in that part of the Bible, it isn't even really about the Amorites. By "relevant" I mean something that will contribute to or aid in the goal of spreading knowledge about the Amorites. "Yo daddy was an Amorite" doesn't do that. Portions of Ezekiel (or preferably a commentary on Ezekiel to avoid original research) could be used to demonstrate how the Israelites viewed the Amorites, but something more apt, like Amos 2:9 (which, being a single source, would avoid synthesis), would be better. Right now the only contribution to knowledge about Amorites that those two verses make is "the Amorites are mentioned in the Bible," which the rest of the section does just dandy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The verses in Ezekiel do give some context to show how Amorites were viewed by Israelites. The interpretation that this is a joke sounds original to me, it is presented as the word of YHWH, not as a joke. What is needed is a secondary source that explains specific interpretations of why it says "Amorite" here and how this portrays them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What context do those verses give? How they should help the article is not the same is how they are (or aren't) actually helping the article. What knowledge does "your father was an Amorite" actually contribute to the article? I am not interpreting the verses as a joke in their original context (which, if one actually reads Ezekial 16, is a condemnation of Israelite idolatry). I see their original inclusion as possibly being a post-modern joke on the part of some past editor, but possibly also as Bible verses cherry-picked out of their original context simply because the word "Amorites" is present. The verse isn't even really about the Amorites, but about Israelite misbehavior. If Ezekiel was written at a different point in Israelite history, another nation (such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, or the Greeks) would have been mentioned instead. Those verses only incidently mention the Amorites, unlike Amos 3:9, which does concern Israelite views of the Amorites. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well now we've had your interpretation of it adequately explained, but what would be more relevant is secondary sources' interpretations of it. This is the appropriate article. I will look for some when I get a chance. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you actually even looked at Ezekiel 16? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still don't seem to get how it works here. It couldn't matter less what your or my personal interpretation of the primary source is. You may think it is a joke and irrelevant, and the next person may disagree. What matters to our job here is only how do published secondary sources interpret it. You don't seem to want to look for any secondary source that might back up your thesis that it is a joke. If it mentions Amorites, it does so for a reason, and I have every expectation we will find actual sources that address this mention and the Biblical view of Amorites. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep misinterpretting me. I NEVER said that the original verse is a joke, I said that its inclusion in the site was probably done as a joke by some previous user. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. You also have not answered my question of "Have you actually read Ezekiel 16?" Do I actually have to post Ezekiel 16?

1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. 4 And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. 5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. 6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. 7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. 9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. 10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. 15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. 16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. 17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, 18 And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them.

And so on. It is about the Israelites, just as the Gospel of Mark is about Jesus and the Apostles and not Elijah. Just because someone or something is mentioned in a text does not mean that the text is about that, it only mentions it. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As can be seen in Calvin's commentary, Wesley's commentary, and Henry's commentary, the text is about the Israelites, and the Amorites are only mentioned as examples of cursed nations that engage in destable practices. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the removal of changes made by IP address[edit]

Examining the history of this article, I found that the two verses from Ezekiel and the link to Harut and Marut were added by [User_talk:], who had a history of vandalizing pages and making unconstructive edits.

He made the exact same edit here, which has since been removed. He also added Karma to the Kerma article, Khan to the Khyan article, and Artaxerses to the Avaris article, when the only connections are similar spellings (and all these edits have since been undone as unconstructive). He has also added Harut and Marut to the Amurru, Hurrian, and Mitanni pages, which are about as related as Azazel or Zoroastrianism. He made the same addition to the Amurru article, and this has since been removed. repeatedly made unconstructive edits and there is little reason to assume good faith or a sliver of competance in his edits.

As I have already posted, a simple skimming of Ezekiel 16 and a glance at various commentaries show that Ezekiel 16 is a rebuking of Jerusalem for behaving like other countries, the Amorites just happened to be named as an example. A visit to 4chan and the consideration that the cheese article needs to be locked up pretty often will demonstrate that there are plenty of people out there who would enjoy making unconstructive edits. No evidence has been provided that Ezekiel 16 is about the Amorites, until secondary sources saying otherwise are presented, there is no reason to include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Were the Byzantine Amorians descended from the Amorites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the Byzantine Amorians were named for the city of Amorium, the name of which ultimately comes from the Proto-Indo-European ma, "mother." The Amorites were probably Semitic. Thank you for asking. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amorites were WHITE??? lol[edit]

Come on guys! the Physical Appearance section is rubbish. In the 19th and early 20th centuries you had all sorts of people trying to turn the ancient peoples of the mid east into whites. The sources mentioned in that section are dated, represent an inaccurate and dated world view (racist?), and were from the 19th and very early 20th centuries, and its damned obvious what the motives were. You cant take that seriously and include it in a "modern" article surely?? Take a look at the language, it was Semitic, not "white, north european", look at images of Hammurabi and Zimrilim and other Amorite kings, they didnt look "white, north European", look at where Amorites were believed to come from originally; Syria or Arabia....this section is crap to be frank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talkcontribs) 07:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully agree with you that this is outdated, racist rubbish, and clearly the Amorites were Semitic, not Indo-European. But on the other hand this is historiography (study of what ideas various people 'used to' think) and we don't like to blank out relevant historiography or sweep it under the carpet. Perhaps the section ought to be rewritten to make clearer that it is discredited and obsolete, rather than send the whole thing down the memory hole? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its is generaly accepted that the technologys of Horse and Metal came from Europe via the Balkans into Turkey and the Middle east. Clearly these were europeans who dominated and created the original Mesopotamian cultures and dominated the local people and caused them to multiply with advanced agriculture. Over time and by the time of certainly Babylon, these "white" aristocratic class had fully interbred with the local people and become themselves middle eastern along with the local language. Exactly the same thing happened with Vikings who initially dominated but later merged with the people they colonised and dominated. The Gene flow was North to South not vice versa, hence the coffee coloured people of the middle east today. The Anderman Islands shows the left over peoples that originally lived down the whole of the South Asian Sea board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.194, if anything at all you say here is "generally accepted" as you put it, no doubt you will be able to demonstrate its "general acceptance" to challengers with some kind of sources or citations, bearing in mind relevance to this article's topic, of course. Otherwise, you are only wasting our time with unsubstantiated conjectures or speculations derived from your own Original research. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assirian sources talk about some Aryan names in Canaán in XVI century BC. Some examples are Biridasva, Sudarma, Artamanyu. They can be rest of Mittani elite o another iranian aristocratic groups who rule some cities in the zone. Actually the Amorites were living there in this time, and they were Hittite vassals. Both nations are indoeuropaean and could give some genetic aportation with marriages. If we had 2 or more marriages we can maintain the recessive gen. Is only a hypothesi, but is very possible. Sorry for the awful English, I'm Catalan. Fiebre tifoidea — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And these assertions won't get much farther than any others without any reliable sources. I'm all up for mentioning anything that can actually be sourced as a significant view and attributing it, but I am against unsourced ideas being plucked out of thin air and aggressively asserted, like "(unspecified) Assyrian sources clearly considered Aryans to be in Canaan". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL at the kitsch-headed individuals writing about "European" Mesopotamian and Levantine elites with absolutely zero evidence and contradicting long-standing linguistical (and yes, anthropological) characteristics of these regions :) Together with Afrocentrism, this is one of the funniest "fake histories" on offer today. Especially considering the fact that the earliest attested IE language (Hittite) is about a thousand years younger than the earliest attested Semitic one (Old Akkadian). And yes, ancient Semites, like today's ones, aren't exactly of Northern European phenotype, however they clearly are of Caucasoid/Europoid phenotype. So if by "white" one means Caucasoid, then yes they are "white" in this sense. (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amorite is a bad language ???[edit]

What on earth does 'Amorite is a bad language' mean? And why is this 'header' portion of the article not editable? Maybe it's policy, but could someone pls explain?


Ken M Quirici 14:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talkcontribs)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This histmerge request appeared in my user talk page. I did the history-merge, as Amorites to Amorite, but the move better be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hi Anthony, I have found another case that may need a histmerge: Even though it is about an ethnic group, Amorite uses the singular rather than the plural as title, and I found out that this is due to an old merge and redirect that has resulted in Amorites having significant history. Per WP:PLURAL, this article should be at Amorites. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my rashness. I thought, and still think, that the move is uncontroversial, and fully covered by policy. I will refrain from any further actions until the end of the discussion, though. I would only like to remark that if the move ends up accepted, the hatnote should be changed from Template:For to Template:Redirect, and the first sentence adapted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal with Amurru kingdom[edit]

The content of the article Amurru kingdom is fully covered in this article, and in much better detail.

Crucially, the primary sources for both the "kingdom" and the "people" are very few and are exactly the same. No secondary sources I am aware of split the people from the kingdom, because there is no information to provide separately without duplicating.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose We have many kingdoms about whom we know nothing, yet they have Stub articles. Amurru was a small kingdom in Lebanon and didn't represent the whole Amorites from Babylon to Damascus. Amurru and Amotites are not the same and it deserve a Stub as its kings never ruled over the whole Amorites nor was this kingdom the ancestral or first land of those people
Plus, this article doesnt talk a lot about the kingdom or Abdi-Ashirta. it seems like this article focus just on Mesopotamia and aside from the very similar names, Amorites are a people attested from c 2500 to 1200 BC, while Amurru is just a petty kingdom that lasted less than 200 years in a very restricted area.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose there difference between amorite people that talk about ethinicity and Amurru kingdom that talk about country --FPP (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply the predecessors of the Canaanites?[edit]

This article suggests that Amorites were simply the predecessors of the Canaanites. I have seen this written in other places as well. Would anyone object to clarifying this in the lead? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs a map[edit]

This article needs a map with labeled points and areas for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbabbitt (talkcontribs) 4 July 2017 (UTC)


As far as I assume kurdish nationalists claim amorites to be kurdish because they had a state called kurda:

The Amorites are the origin of the Semitic peoples, and they are the ancestors of the Arabs. Joushal (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "Semitic peoples" describes those who's descended from Shem. So how can the Amorites be the origin of the Semitic peoples? (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]