Jump to content

Syro-Hittite states: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
English map
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|none}}
{{Short description|Iron Age states of modern Syria and Turkey}}
[[Image:NeoHittiteStates.gif|thumb|right|265px|[[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] states ({{circa}} 800 BCE)]]
[[Image:Neohititas-en.svg|thumb|right|265px|[[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] states ({{circa}} 800 BCE)]]
The states that are called '''Syro-Hittite''', '''Neo-Hittite''' (in older literature), or '''Luwian-Aramean''' (in modern scholarly works), were [[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] regional [[polities]] of the [[Iron Age]], situated in southeastern parts of modern [[Turkey]] and northwestern parts of modern [[Syria]], known in ancient times as lands of [[Hatti (region)|Hatti]] and [[Aram (region)|Aram]]. They arose following the collapse of the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] in the 12th century BCE, and lasted until they were subdued by the [[Assyrian Empire]] in the 8th century BCE. They are grouped together by scholars, on the basis of several cultural criteria, that are recognized as similar and mutually shared between both societies, northern (Luwian) and southern (Aramean). Cultural exchange between those societies is seen as a specific regional phenomena, particularly in light of significant linguistic distinctions between two main regional languages, with [[Luwian language|Luwian]] belonging to the [[Anatolian languages|Anatolian]] group of [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] languages, and [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] belonging to the [[Northwest Semitic languages|Northwest Semitic]] group of [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] languages. Several questions that are related to regional grouping of Luwian and Aramaean states are viewed differently among scholars, including some views that are critical towards such grouping in general.{{sfn|Hawkins|1982|p=372-441}}{{sfn|Hawkins|1995c|p=87-101}}{{sfn|Sader|2010|p=273-300}}{{sfn|Sader|2014|p=11–36}}{{sfn|Sader|2016|p=61-76}}{{sfn|Osborne|2020|p=}}
The states called '''Neo-Hittite''', '''Syro-Hittite''' (in older literature), or '''Luwian-Aramean''' (in modern scholarly works) were [[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] regional [[polities]] of the [[Iron Age]], situated in southeastern parts of modern [[Turkey]] and northwestern parts of modern [[Syria]], known in ancient times as lands of [[Hatti (region)|Hatti]] and [[Aram (region)|Aram]]. They arose following the collapse of the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] in the 12th century BCE, and lasted until they were subdued by the [[Assyrian Empire]] in the 8th century BCE. They are grouped together by scholars, on the basis of several cultural criteria, that are recognized as similar and mutually shared between both societies, northern ([[Luwians|Luwian]]) and southern ([[Aramaeans|Aramaean]]). Cultural exchange between those societies is seen as a specific regional phenomenon, particularly in light of significant linguistic distinctions between the two main regional languages, with [[Luwian language|Luwian]] belonging to the [[Anatolian languages|Anatolian]] group of [[Indo-European languages]] and [[Aramaic]] belonging to the [[Northwest Semitic languages|Northwest Semitic]] group of [[Semitic languages]]. Several questions related to the regional grouping of Luwian and Aramaean states are viewed differently among scholars, including some views that are critical towards such grouping in general.{{sfn|Hawkins|1982|p=372-441}}{{sfn|Hawkins|1995c|p=87-101}}{{sfn|Sader|2010|p=273-300}}{{sfn|Sader|2014|p=11–36}}{{sfn|Sader|2016|p=61-76}}{{sfn|Osborne|2020|p=}}


==Name==
==Name==
[[Image:IvrizRelief.JPG|thumb|[[İvriz relief]], with God [[Teshub]] (on the left) and king [[Warpalawas]] (ca 730-710 BCE) (right)]]
{{further|Name of Syria}}
{{further|Name of Syria}}
[[Image:IvrizRelief.JPG|right|thumb|250px|[[İvriz relief]], with God [[Teshub]] (on the left) and king [[Warpalawas]] (ca 730-710 BC) (right)]]
One of the most contested issues within the field is related to the choice of proper terms for this group of states. On that issue, scholars are divided into several categories. Some prefer terms that are derived from [[endonymic]] (native) names for [[Luwians]] and [[Arameans]], thus using terms like ''Luwian-Aramean'' or ''Aramean-Luwian''. Others prefer to use terms that are derived from various [[exonymic]] (foreign) names, thus proposing designations like ''Syrian-Anatolian'' or ''Syro-Anatolian'', based on Greek term [[Anatolia]], combined with anachronistic application of [[Syria (region)|Syrian]] labels, in the sense that was introduced much later, by ancient Greeks, as their designation for Arameans and their land ([[Aram (region)|Aram]]). Such preference for foreign terms, advocated by some western scholars, is viewed as being [[Cultural bias|culturally biased]], and thus insensitive towards native (endonymic) terminology. Some scholars still use older terms, like ''Syro-Hittite'' and ''Neo-Hittite'', but those terms have several additional meanings in scholarly literature. More precise term ''Post-Hittite'' is also used, as a broad designation for the entire period of Anatolian history spanning from the 12th to the 6th century BCE.{{sfn|Hawkins|1982|p=372-375}}{{sfn|Sader|2010|p=287-298}}{{sfn|Gilibert|2011|p=2}}{{sfn|Bryce|2012|p=79-80}}{{sfn|Osborne|2020|p=4-7}}
One of the most contested issues within the field is related to the choice of proper terms for this group of states. On that issue, scholars are divided into several categories. Some prefer terms that are derived from [[endonymic]] (native) names for [[Luwians]] and [[Arameans]], thus using terms like ''Luwian-Aramean'' or ''Aramean-Luwian''. Others prefer to use terms that are derived from various [[exonymic]] (foreign) names, thus proposing designations like ''Syrian-Anatolian'' or ''Syro-Anatolian'', based on Greek term [[Anatolia]], combined with anachronistic application of [[Syria (region)|Syrian]] labels, in the sense that was introduced much later, by ancient Greeks, as their designation for Arameans and their land ([[Aram (region)|Aram]]). Such preference for foreign terms, advocated by some western scholars, is viewed as being [[Cultural bias|culturally biased]], and thus insensitive towards native (endonymic) terminology. Some scholars still use older terms, like ''Syro-Hittite'' and ''Neo-Hittite'', but those terms have several additional meanings in scholarly literature. More precise term ''Post-Hittite'' is also used, as a broad designation for the entire period of Anatolian history spanning from the 12th to the 6th century BCE.{{sfn|Hawkins|1982|p=372-375}}{{sfn|Sader|2010|p=287-298}}{{sfn|Gilibert|2011|p=2}}{{sfn|Bryce|2012|p=79-80}}{{sfn|Osborne|2020|p=4-7}}


Line 12: Line 12:
==Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition==
==Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition==
{{Further|Bronze Age collapse}}
{{Further|Bronze Age collapse}}
[[Image:Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg|thumb|right|265px|The [[Hittite New Kingdom]] and its zone of influence (political and cultural) during the 14th and the 13th centuries BCE]]
[[Image:Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg|thumb|upright=1.75|The [[Hittite New Kingdom]] and its zone of influence (political and cultural) during the 14th and the 13th centuries BCE]]
The collapse of the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] is usually associated with the gradual decline of Eastern Mediterranean trade networks and the resulting [[Bronze Age collapse|collapse of major Late Bronze Age cities]] in the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean.{{sfn|Hawkins|1994|p=91-94}} At the beginning of the 12th century BCE, [[Wilusa]] ([[Troy]]) was destroyed<ref>C. Mossé (1984). ''La Grèce archaïcque d'Homère à Eschyle''. Editions du Seuil. Paris: p. 35.</ref> and the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] suffered a sudden devastating attack from the [[Kaskians|Kaskas]], who occupied the coasts around the [[Black Sea]], and who joined with the [[Mysians]]. They proceeded to destroy almost all Hittite sites but were finally defeated by the [[Assyria]]ns beyond the southern borders near the [[Tigris]].{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=49-50}} [[Hattusa|Hatti]], [[Arzawa]] ([[Lydia]]), [[Alashiya]] ([[Cyprus]]), [[Ugarit]] and [[Alalakh]] were destroyed.{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=49-50}}

The collapse of the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] is usually associated with the gradual decline of Eastern Mediterranean trade networks and the resulting [[Bronze Age collapse|collapse of major Late Bronze Age cities]] in the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean.{{sfn|Hawkins|1994|p=91-94}} At the beginning of the 12th century BC, [[Wilusa]] ([[Troy]]) was destroyed<ref>C. Mossé (1984). ''La Grèce archaïcque d'Homère à Eschyle''. Editions du Seuil. Paris: p. 35.</ref> and the [[Hittite New Kingdom]] suffered a sudden devastating attack from the [[Kaskians|Kaskas]], who occupied the coasts around the [[Black Sea]], and who joined with the [[Mysians]]. They proceeded to destroy almost all Hittite sites but were finally defeated by the [[Assyria]]ns beyond the southern borders near the [[Tigris]].{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=49-50}} [[Hattusa|Hatti]], [[Arzawa]] ([[Lydia]]), [[Alashiya]] ([[Cyprus]]), [[Ugarit]] and [[Alalakh]] were destroyed.{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=49-50}}


[[Hattusa]], the [[Hittites|Hittite]] capital, was completely destroyed. Following this collapse of large cities and the Hittite state, the Early Iron Age in northern [[Mesopotamia]] saw a dispersal of settlements and ruralization, with the appearance of large numbers of hamlets, villages, and farmsteads.<ref>See Wilkinson, Tony J.; 2003. ''Archaeological landscapes of the Near East.'' Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.</ref> Syro-Hittite states emerged in the process of such major landscape transformation, in the form of regional states with new political structures and cultural affiliations. David Hawkins was able to trace a dynastic link between the Hittite imperial dynasty and the "Great Kings" and "Country-lords" of Melid and Karkamish of the Early Iron Age, proving an uninterrupted continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age at those sites.{{sfn|Hawkins|1995a|p=1295-1307}}{{sfn|Hawkins|1995b|p=75–86}}<ref>See "Karkamish" and "Melid" in Hawkins, John David; 2000. ''Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions.'' (3 vols) De Gruyter: Berlin.</ref>
[[Hattusa]], the [[Hittites|Hittite]] capital, was completely destroyed. Following this collapse of large cities and the Hittite state, the Early Iron Age in northern [[Mesopotamia]] saw a dispersal of settlements and ruralization, with the appearance of large numbers of hamlets, villages, and farmsteads.<ref>See Wilkinson, Tony J.; 2003. ''Archaeological landscapes of the Near East.'' Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.</ref> Syro-Hittite states emerged in the process of such major landscape transformation, in the form of regional states with new political structures and cultural affiliations. David Hawkins was able to trace a dynastic link between the Hittite imperial dynasty and the "Great Kings" and "Country-lords" of Melid and Karkamish of the Early Iron Age, proving an uninterrupted continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age at those sites.{{sfn|Hawkins|1995a|p=1295-1307}}{{sfn|Hawkins|1995b|p=75–86}}<ref>See "Karkamish" and "Melid" in Hawkins, John David; 2000. ''Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions.'' (3 vols) De Gruyter: Berlin.</ref>
Line 21: Line 20:


==List of Syro-Hittite states==
==List of Syro-Hittite states==
[[File:Estats neohitites i arameus a Síria al segle VIII aC.png|thumb|right|265px|Various [[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] (orange shades) states in the 8th century BCE]]
[[File:Estats neohitites i arameus a Síria al segle VIII aC.png|thumb|upright=1.5|Various [[Luwians|Luwian]] and [[Arameans|Aramean]] (orange shades) states in the 8th century BCE]]
The Syro–Hittite states may be divided into two groups: a northern group where [[Hittites|Hittite]] rulers remained in power, and a southern group where [[Aramaeans]] came to rule from about 1000 BCE. These states were highly decentralised structures; some appear to have been only loose confederations of sub-kingdoms.<ref>''Tübinger Bibelatlas / Tübingen Bible Atlas''. Siegfried Mittmann, Götz Schmitt (eds.), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001, Map B IV 13-14</ref>{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=39-46}}

The Syro–Hittite states may be divided into two groups: a northern group where [[Hittites|Hittite]] rulers remained in power, and a southern group where [[Aramaeans]] came to rule from about 1000 BC. These states were highly decentralised structures; some appear to have been only loose confederations of sub-kingdoms.<ref>''Tübinger Bibelatlas / Tübingen Bible Atlas''. Siegfried Mittmann, Götz Schmitt (eds.), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001, Map B IV 13-14</ref>{{sfn|Gurney|1954|p=39-46}}


The northern group includes:
The northern group includes:
* [[Tabal]]. It may have included a group of city states called the Tyanitis ([[Tyana|Tuwana]], [[Tunna]], [[Cybistra|{{transl|hit|Ḫubišna|italics=no}}]], [[Shinukhtu]], [[Ishtunda]])
* [[Tabal (state)|Tabal]]. It may have included a group of city states called the Tyanitis ([[Tyana|Tuwana]], [[Tunna]], [[Cybistra|{{transl|hit|Ḫubišna|italics=no}}]], Shinukhtu, Ishtunda)
* [[Kammanu]] (with [[Melid]])
* [[Kammanu]] (with [[Melid]])
* [[Hilakku]]
* [[Hilakku]]
Line 35: Line 33:


The southern group includes:
The southern group includes:
* [[Palistin]] (whose capital was probably [[Tell Tayinat]]){{sfn|Bryce|2012|p=129}}<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zqQofdcZAGoC&pg=PA802|title= A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East|author= D. T. Potts|date= 27 April 2012|page= 802|isbn= 9781444360769}}</ref>
* [[Palistin]] (whose capital was probably [[Tell Tayinat]]){{sfn|Bryce|2012|p=129}}<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zqQofdcZAGoC&pg=PA802|title= A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East|author= D. T. Potts|date= 27 April 2012|page= 802|publisher= Wiley|isbn= 9781444360769}}</ref>
* [[Bit Gabbari]] (with [[Sam'al]])
* [[Bit Gabbari]] (with [[Sam'al]])
* [[Bit-Adini]] (with the city of [[Til Barsip]])
* [[Bit-Adini]] (with the city of [[Til Barsip]])
* [[Bit Bahiani]] (with [[Guzana]])
* [[Bit Bahiani]] (with [[Guzana]])
* [[Pattin]] (also Pattina or Unqi) (with the city of [[Kinalua]], maybe modern [[Tell Tayinat]]<ref>See the [https://www.utoronto.ca/tap/ Tayinat Website] by the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto</ref>)
* [[Pattin]] (also Pattina or Unqi) (with the city of [[Kinalua]], maybe modern [[Tell Tayinat]]<ref>See the [https://www.utoronto.ca/tap/ Tayinat Website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140527103600/http://www.utoronto.ca/tap/ |date=2014-05-27 }} by the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto</ref>)
* [[Ain Dara temple|Ain Dara]], a religious center
* [[Ain Dara temple|Ain Dara]], a religious center
* [[Bit Agusi]] (with the cities of [[Arpad (Syria)|Arpad]], [[Nampigi]], and (later on) [[Aleppo]])
* [[Bit Agusi]] (with the cities of [[Arpad (Syria)|Arpad]], Nampigi, and (later on) [[Aleppo]])
* [[Hatarikka-Luhuti]] (the capital city of which was at [[Tell Afis|Hatarikka]])
* [[Hatarikka-Luhuti]] (the capital city of which was at [[Tell Afis|Hatarikka]])
* [[Hama#Neo-Hittites|Hamath]]
* [[Hama#Neo-Hittites|Hamath]]


==Inscriptions==
==Inscriptions==
[[Luwian language|Luwian]] monumental inscriptions in [[Anatolian hieroglyphs]] continue almost uninterrupted from the 13th-century Hittite imperial monuments to the Early Iron Age Syro-Hittite inscriptions of Karkemish, Melid, Aleppo and elsewhere.{{sfn|Hawkins|1986|p=363-376}}<ref>Hawkins; 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I, Inscriptions of the Iron Age, De Gruyter, pp. 17-23; Giusfredi; Federico; 2010. Sources for a Socio-Economic History of the Neo-Hittie States, Winter Verlag, pp. 37-44; Simon, Zsolt; 2011. Hethitische Topoi in der hieroglyphen-luwischen Historiographie: Bemerkungen zur Frage der Kontinuität, in M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar, Hethitische Literatur Überlieferungsprozess,Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen Und Nachwirken, Ugarit Verlag, pp. 227-244.</ref> Luwian hieroglyphs were chosen by many of the Syro-Hittite regional kingdoms for their monumental inscriptions, which often appear in bi- or tri-lingual inscriptions with [[Aramaic]], [[Phoenician languages|Phoenician]] or [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] versions. The Early Iron Age in Northern [[Mesopotamia]] also saw a gradual spread of alphabetic writing in [[Aramaic]] and [[Phoenician alphabet|Phoenician]]. During the cultural interactions on the Levantine coast of Syro-Palestine and North Syria in the tenth through 8th centuries BC, Greeks and [[Phrygians]] adopted the alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians.<ref>Brixhe, C. and M. Lejeune (1984). ''Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes''. Paris.</ref>
[[Luwian language|Luwian]] monumental inscriptions in [[Anatolian hieroglyphs]] continue almost uninterrupted from the 13th-century Hittite imperial monuments to the Early Iron Age Syro-Hittite inscriptions of Karkemish, Melid, Aleppo and elsewhere.{{sfn|Hawkins|1986|p=363-376}}<ref>Hawkins; 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I, Inscriptions of the Iron Age, De Gruyter, pp. 17-23; Giusfredi; Federico; 2010. Sources for a Socio-Economic History of the Neo-Hittie States, Winter Verlag, pp. 37-44; Simon, Zsolt; 2011. Hethitische Topoi in der hieroglyphen-luwischen Historiographie: Bemerkungen zur Frage der Kontinuität, in M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar, Hethitische Literatur Überlieferungsprozess,Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen Und Nachwirken, Ugarit Verlag, pp. 227-244.</ref> Luwian hieroglyphs were chosen by many of the Syro-Hittite regional kingdoms for their monumental inscriptions, which often appear in bi- or tri-lingual inscriptions with [[Aramaic]], [[Phoenician languages|Phoenician]] or [[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] versions. The Early Iron Age in Northern [[Mesopotamia]] also saw a gradual spread of alphabetic writing in [[Aramaic]] and [[Phoenician alphabet|Phoenician]]. During the cultural interactions on the Levantine coast of Syro-Palestine and North Syria in the tenth through 8th centuries BCE, Greeks and [[Phrygians]] adopted the alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians.<ref>Brixhe, C. and M. Lejeune (1984). ''Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes''. Paris.</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
{{Portal|Asia}}
{{Portal|Asia}}
{{columns-list|colwidth=25em|
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
* [[Ancient Syria]]
* [[Ancient Syria]]
* [[Aramean kings]]
* [[Aramean kings]]
Line 115: Line 113:
[[Category:Late Bronze Age collapse]]
[[Category:Late Bronze Age collapse]]
[[Category:Aramean states]]
[[Category:Aramean states]]
[[Category:Ancient Levant]]

Latest revision as of 16:14, 17 June 2024

Luwian and Aramean states (c. 800 BCE)

The states called Neo-Hittite, Syro-Hittite (in older literature), or Luwian-Aramean (in modern scholarly works) were Luwian and Aramean regional polities of the Iron Age, situated in southeastern parts of modern Turkey and northwestern parts of modern Syria, known in ancient times as lands of Hatti and Aram. They arose following the collapse of the Hittite New Kingdom in the 12th century BCE, and lasted until they were subdued by the Assyrian Empire in the 8th century BCE. They are grouped together by scholars, on the basis of several cultural criteria, that are recognized as similar and mutually shared between both societies, northern (Luwian) and southern (Aramaean). Cultural exchange between those societies is seen as a specific regional phenomenon, particularly in light of significant linguistic distinctions between the two main regional languages, with Luwian belonging to the Anatolian group of Indo-European languages and Aramaic belonging to the Northwest Semitic group of Semitic languages. Several questions related to the regional grouping of Luwian and Aramaean states are viewed differently among scholars, including some views that are critical towards such grouping in general.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Name

[edit]
İvriz relief, with God Teshub (on the left) and king Warpalawas (ca 730-710 BCE) (right)

One of the most contested issues within the field is related to the choice of proper terms for this group of states. On that issue, scholars are divided into several categories. Some prefer terms that are derived from endonymic (native) names for Luwians and Arameans, thus using terms like Luwian-Aramean or Aramean-Luwian. Others prefer to use terms that are derived from various exonymic (foreign) names, thus proposing designations like Syrian-Anatolian or Syro-Anatolian, based on Greek term Anatolia, combined with anachronistic application of Syrian labels, in the sense that was introduced much later, by ancient Greeks, as their designation for Arameans and their land (Aram). Such preference for foreign terms, advocated by some western scholars, is viewed as being culturally biased, and thus insensitive towards native (endonymic) terminology. Some scholars still use older terms, like Syro-Hittite and Neo-Hittite, but those terms have several additional meanings in scholarly literature. More precise term Post-Hittite is also used, as a broad designation for the entire period of Anatolian history spanning from the 12th to the 6th century BCE.[7][8][9][10][11]

Anachronistic uses of Syrian labels in modern scholarly literature were additionally challenged after the recent discovery of the bilingual Çineköy inscription from the 8th century BCE, written in Luwian and Phoenician languages. The inscription contained references to the neighbouring Assyria, inscribed in a specific form that renders as Syria, thus providing additional (and in the same time the oldest) evidence for the dominant scholarly view on the origins and primary meanings of the term Syria, that originated as an apheretic form of the term Assyria, and was redefined much later, by ancient Greeks, who introduced a territorial distinction between two names, and started to use term Syria as a specific designation for western regions (ancient Aram). For ancient Luwians, Syria was designation for Assyria proper, thus revealing the later Greek use of the term Syria as very different from its original meaning, and also anachronistic if used in modern scientific descriptions of historical realities, related to Luwian and Aramean states of the Iron Age.[12][13][14]

Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age transition

[edit]
The Hittite New Kingdom and its zone of influence (political and cultural) during the 14th and the 13th centuries BCE

The collapse of the Hittite New Kingdom is usually associated with the gradual decline of Eastern Mediterranean trade networks and the resulting collapse of major Late Bronze Age cities in the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean.[15] At the beginning of the 12th century BCE, Wilusa (Troy) was destroyed[16] and the Hittite New Kingdom suffered a sudden devastating attack from the Kaskas, who occupied the coasts around the Black Sea, and who joined with the Mysians. They proceeded to destroy almost all Hittite sites but were finally defeated by the Assyrians beyond the southern borders near the Tigris.[17] Hatti, Arzawa (Lydia), Alashiya (Cyprus), Ugarit and Alalakh were destroyed.[17]

Hattusa, the Hittite capital, was completely destroyed. Following this collapse of large cities and the Hittite state, the Early Iron Age in northern Mesopotamia saw a dispersal of settlements and ruralization, with the appearance of large numbers of hamlets, villages, and farmsteads.[18] Syro-Hittite states emerged in the process of such major landscape transformation, in the form of regional states with new political structures and cultural affiliations. David Hawkins was able to trace a dynastic link between the Hittite imperial dynasty and the "Great Kings" and "Country-lords" of Melid and Karkamish of the Early Iron Age, proving an uninterrupted continuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age at those sites.[19][20][21]

Aside from literary evidence from inscriptions, the uninterrupted cultural continuity of Post-Hittite states in the region, during the transitional period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, is now further confirmed by recent archaeological work at the Temple of the Storm God on the citadel of Aleppo,[22] and Ain Dara temple,[23] where the Late Bronze Age temple buildings continue into the Iron Age without hiatus, with repeated periods of construction in the Early Iron Age.

List of Syro-Hittite states

[edit]
Various Luwian and Aramean (orange shades) states in the 8th century BCE

The Syro–Hittite states may be divided into two groups: a northern group where Hittite rulers remained in power, and a southern group where Aramaeans came to rule from about 1000 BCE. These states were highly decentralised structures; some appear to have been only loose confederations of sub-kingdoms.[24][25]

The northern group includes:

The southern group includes:

Inscriptions

[edit]

Luwian monumental inscriptions in Anatolian hieroglyphs continue almost uninterrupted from the 13th-century Hittite imperial monuments to the Early Iron Age Syro-Hittite inscriptions of Karkemish, Melid, Aleppo and elsewhere.[29][30] Luwian hieroglyphs were chosen by many of the Syro-Hittite regional kingdoms for their monumental inscriptions, which often appear in bi- or tri-lingual inscriptions with Aramaic, Phoenician or Akkadian versions. The Early Iron Age in Northern Mesopotamia also saw a gradual spread of alphabetic writing in Aramaic and Phoenician. During the cultural interactions on the Levantine coast of Syro-Palestine and North Syria in the tenth through 8th centuries BCE, Greeks and Phrygians adopted the alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Hawkins 1982, p. 372-441.
  2. ^ Hawkins 1995c, p. 87-101.
  3. ^ Sader 2010, p. 273-300.
  4. ^ Sader 2014, p. 11–36.
  5. ^ Sader 2016, p. 61-76.
  6. ^ Osborne 2020.
  7. ^ Hawkins 1982, p. 372-375.
  8. ^ Sader 2010, p. 287-298.
  9. ^ Gilibert 2011, p. 2.
  10. ^ Bryce 2012, p. 79-80.
  11. ^ Osborne 2020, p. 4-7.
  12. ^ Rollinger 2006a, p. 72-82.
  13. ^ Rollinger 2006b, p. 283-287.
  14. ^ Messo 2011, p. 111–114.
  15. ^ Hawkins 1994, p. 91-94.
  16. ^ C. Mossé (1984). La Grèce archaïcque d'Homère à Eschyle. Editions du Seuil. Paris: p. 35.
  17. ^ a b Gurney 1954, p. 49-50.
  18. ^ See Wilkinson, Tony J.; 2003. Archaeological landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
  19. ^ Hawkins 1995a, p. 1295-1307.
  20. ^ Hawkins 1995b, p. 75–86.
  21. ^ See "Karkamish" and "Melid" in Hawkins, John David; 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. (3 vols) De Gruyter: Berlin.
  22. ^ Kohlmeyer, Kay; 2000a. Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Münster: Rhema.
  23. ^ Abū Assaf, Alī; 1990. Der Tempel von ءAin Dārā. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
  24. ^ Tübinger Bibelatlas / Tübingen Bible Atlas. Siegfried Mittmann, Götz Schmitt (eds.), Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001, Map B IV 13-14
  25. ^ Gurney 1954, p. 39-46.
  26. ^ Bryce 2012, p. 129.
  27. ^ D. T. Potts (27 April 2012). A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiley. p. 802. ISBN 9781444360769.
  28. ^ See the Tayinat Website Archived 2014-05-27 at the Wayback Machine by the Department of Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto
  29. ^ Hawkins 1986, p. 363-376.
  30. ^ Hawkins; 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I, Inscriptions of the Iron Age, De Gruyter, pp. 17-23; Giusfredi; Federico; 2010. Sources for a Socio-Economic History of the Neo-Hittie States, Winter Verlag, pp. 37-44; Simon, Zsolt; 2011. Hethitische Topoi in der hieroglyphen-luwischen Historiographie: Bemerkungen zur Frage der Kontinuität, in M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar, Hethitische Literatur Überlieferungsprozess,Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen Und Nachwirken, Ugarit Verlag, pp. 227-244.
  31. ^ Brixhe, C. and M. Lejeune (1984). Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Paris.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]