It is plain that the identification of Kedar with the Arabs, which is clearly found in Ca 1', and prevails in the later Jewish literature, had already commenced in Assyrian times ; thus whereas Esarhaddon calls a certain Hazael king of Aribi (Cylinder A of the Esarhaddon Inseriptions, ed. Harper, p. 8), Assurbanipal, who repeats this passage, calls him king of Kedar (G. Smith, p. 283) ; * and though U-ai-te' is ordinarily styled by Esarhaddon 'King of the Arabs' (\VAI iii. pi. 24. 1. 11, 108, etc.), the Kedarites are par- ticularly styled 'his men' (I. 107), and likewise the Arab general A-bi-ya-te' is called a Kedarite (1. 121). Nevertheless, a special country of Kedar existed, and from the detaUed account of Assur- banipal's Arabian campaign it ought to be possible to locate it accurately. This monarch's army marched 100 Kash-bu .f^aA;-foi-rM from Nineveh, crossing the Tigris and Euphrates, to the wilder- ness of Mas, and 6 Kash-bu K^ff-h^-^~>^ from
* In the oorrespoading pUte o( WAI this puwge is •bU tented
bt
Azalla in Mas to Kurasiti, where they besieged the Kedarites. It is not, however, clear whether the distance from Nineveh to Azalla, or to the border of Mas, is given in the first figure; and views differ as to the length of the measure emjiloj-ed (Glaser, I.e. p. 279 n. ; Delitzsch, I.e. p. 177). Since the captives are sent to Damascus (1. 113), it seems probable that the direction of the king's march was towards Hauran (as Delitzsch, I.e., suggests) rather than Yemamah (where Glaser, I.e., endeavours to locate Kedar on what seem inadequate grounds). The fact, too, that the Kedarite kings invade Syria vid Moab ( WAI v. col. vii. 112 ; G. Smith, p. 288), points the same way.
With regard to tlie history of Kedar, we learn from the inscription that the gods of Hazael, king of Kedar, had been plundered by Esarhaddon (see above), but that Hazael, having sued for them, received them back (the chief being called Adar- samain), and was made vassal-king of Arabia. His son, called by Esarhaddon Ya'fl, by Assur- banipal Ya'u-ta' (WAI iii. 21, col. viii. 37), mora frequently U-ai-te' (ib. 21, col. viii. 7, etc.), prob- ably on account of the heavier tribute exacted from him (Esarhaddon, I.e. 8, 20-24) in the next reign joined the party of Samas-sumukin, and invaded Syria ; but being defeated by the Assyri- ans, fled to the friendly tribe Nebaioth, who, however, appear to have ^iven him up to Assur- banipal. Another kin" of Kedar, named Ammu- ladi, thereujjon invaded Syria a second time, but was also defeated, and taken together with Adi- yali, wife of U-ai-te'. Simultaneously with the expedition into Syria, U-ai-te' had despatched a force to Babylon under the Kedarites Abiyate' and Aimu, the former of whom, after defeat, sued for pardon, and obtained the sovereignty of Arabia : this, however, he quickly resigned in favour of the cousin and namesalce of the former king, who with the king of Nebaioth organized a fresh revolt, against which Assurbanipal's expedition was directed. The Kedarite nest was destroyed, and severe punishment inflicted on Arabia. The date of this invasion is probably B.C. 648 (cf. Lehmann, ' Samas-sum-ukin,' Assyriologisehe Bib- liulhek, viii. p. 6).
Wliile the inscriptions of Assurbanipal thus explain the co-ordination of Kedar with ' Arab ' and ' Nebaioth,' it is not probable that the blow dealt to Kedar by this monarch is that to which Is 21"- " refers. Chej-ne (I.e.), who thinks this passage may be Isaianic, seems inclined to connect it with an attack on the Arabs by Sargon ; but this monarch nowhere mentions Kedar, and it seems doubtful whether this oracle can have been written before the hegemony of Kedar, which may have existed before the time of Hazael and Esarhad- don, but has not been shown to have been anterior to it. After two invasions of Syria by Arabs led by Kedarite kings, the name of the tribe could lie made to stand for the nation, and this suggests that the oracle is later than the events described by Assurbanipal, since its author appears to reckon the Dedanim among the sons of Kedar (vy.is- ") ; and the oracle in which they are threatened with an attack by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 49'- "8) is similarly loose in its application of their name.
Interesting as are the Kedarite names recorded in the inscriptions, they are evidently too carelessly transcribed to render identification safe ; the name Ammuladi (like Amme'ta,', S. A. Smith, I.e. ii. 38) is clearly Arabic, whereas Hazael is doubtless Aramaic. The name of the tribe itself is prob- ably derived from the Arabic root l^dr, which give* a verb meaning ' to be able or powerful,' but de- rivatives of which have various senses, suitable for personal names. The name of their chief god
KEDEMAH
REILAH
833
(whence cither they or a neij^hbouring tribe were called, Gliifer, I.e.. 278), A-tnr-sa-ma-ai-in, seeina to lii> eitlier IMid'nician or Aramaic fCP "ni (as it is an.ilyzt-il by Dulitzsch, I.e.) ratlier than a form of Athtar (a.H Glaser, I.e., supgests). Further sug-
gi'stions for the derivation of tliese names are given by E. Sacliau, ZA, 1897 (xii.), P. 44 IL
D. S. Marooliouth. KEDEMAH (n5-p ' eastward ').— A son of Ish- mael, Cn 2o"=l Ch 1". The clan of wliich he is tlie eponj'iMOus head has not been idcntilied. Ball ('Geneitis' in SHOT, ad loe.) considers that in both the above passages ri--^s is a mistake for 2-)\} (Nodab), which is read in 1 Ch 5". He re- marks that Kcdimah, ' eastward,' is a singular name, that u might be misread p, while 3 and o are often confused. Neither the LXX {lU5^la) nor Luc. {K45efia) lend any support to Ball's proposed emendation.