The Neo-Hittite states (colored)c. 800 BCE, with theLuwian ones predominantly in the north and theAramean ones predominantly in the south
The states calledNeo-Hittite,Syro-Hittite (in older literature), orLuwian-Aramean (in modern scholarly works) wereLuwian andAramean regionalpolities of theIron Age, situated in southeastern parts of modernTurkey and northwestern parts of modernSyria, known in ancient times as lands ofHatti andAram. They arose following the collapse of theHittite New Kingdom in the 12th century BCE, and lasted until they were subdued by theAssyrian 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 phenomenon, particularly in light of significant linguistic distinctions between the two main regional languages, withLuwian belonging to theAnatolian group ofIndo-European languages andAramaic belonging to theNorthwest Semitic group ofSemitic 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]
The most commonly used qualifier for these states isNeo-Hittite. It has been criticized because it can mislead readers into thinking these states were ethno-linguistically Hittite, even though theHittite language is not attested in them.[7][8]
However, Mirko Novák notes that
the qualifier "Neo-Hittite", culturally connoted, seems however the most suitable here—alongside "Luwo-Aramean", more appropriate from a linguistic point of view—insofar as the sovereigns of these principalities express in their titulature and in the iconography a feeling of identity that attaches itself deliberately to the tradition of the Hittite Empire.[9]
According to Novák,
The term „Neo-Hittite“ reflects on the inherited elements from the Hittite imperial period, such as the iconography of kings and gods in the visual art or the titularity of the kings. This ideological tradition constructed by the “Neo-Hittite” entities effected the Assyrian designation of the Northern Levant as “Land of Ḫatti”.[10]
Some scholars have been usingLuwian-Aramean and variations thereof (e.g.Aramean-Luwian,Luwo-Aramaean,Luwio-Aramean) which are derived fromendonymic (native) names forLuwians andArameans. According to Novák,Luwo-Aramean is more appropriate thanNeo-Hittite from a linguistic standpoint,[9][8] "since Aramaic and Hieroglyphic Luwian were the predominant languages spoken and written."[8] However, quoting Novák,
Factually, both terms “Neo-Hittite” and “Luwo-Aramaean” describe one and the same region and culture.[10]
The labelsSyrian-Anatolian orSyro-Anatolian have been criticized for usingexonymic (foreign) names, based on the Greek termAnatolia, combined with an anachronistic application of the termSyria, in the sense that was introduced much later, by ancient Greeks, as their designation for Arameans and their land,Aram.(See alsoName of Syria.) Such preference for foreign terms, advocated by some western scholars, is viewed as beingculturally biased, and thus insensitive towards native (endonymic) terminology. Anachronistic uses ofSyria in modern scholarly literature were additionally challenged after the recent discovery of the bilingualÇineköy inscription from the 8th century BCE, written in theLuwian andPhoenician languages. The inscription contained references to the neighbouringAssyria, inscribed in a specific form that renders asSyria, thus providing additional (and in the same time the oldest) evidence for the dominant scholarly view on the origins and primary meanings of the termSyria, that originated as anapheretic form of the termAssyria, and was redefined much later, by ancient Greeks, who introduced a territorial distinction between two names, and started to use termSyria as a specific designation for western regions (ancientAram). For ancient Luwians,Syria was designation forAssyria proper, thus revealing the later Greek use of the termSyria 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.[11][12][13]
The qualifierSyro-Hittite has been criticized as well for anachronistically using the prefixSyro-, but also on the grounds that it overemphasizes the "Syrian" (i.e. Aramean) aspect while neglecting the Luwian one.[7]
The termpost-Hittite states has also been proposed, although it is by definition too broad, as it can be used and has been used in reference to other Iron Age polities that flourished after the collapse of the Hittite Empire, from the 12th to the 6th century BCE,[14][15][16][17][18] such asPhrygia[19] or even theNeo-Assyrian Empire.[19]
Hattusa, theHittite capital, was completely destroyed. Following this collapse of large cities and the Hittite state, the Early Iron Age in northernMesopotamia saw a dispersal of settlements and ruralization, with the appearance of large numbers of hamlets, villages, and farmsteads.[23] 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.[24][25][26]
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 ofAleppo,[27] andAin Dara temple,[28] where the Late Bronze Age temple buildings continue into the Iron Age without hiatus, with repeated periods of construction in the Early Iron Age.
VariousLuwian andAramean (orange shades) states in the 8th century BCE
The Neo-Hittite states may be divided into two groups: a northern group whereHittite rulers remained in power, and a southern group whereArameans came to rule from about 1000 BCE. These states were highly decentralised structures; some appear to have been only loose confederations of sub-kingdoms.[29][30]
Luwian monumental inscriptions inAnatolian 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.[34][35] 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 withAramaic,Phoenician orAkkadian versions. The Early Iron Age in NorthernMesopotamia also saw a gradual spread of alphabetic writing inAramaic andPhoenician. During the cultural interactions on the Levantine coast of Syro-Palestine and North Syria in the 10th through 8th centuries BCE, Greeks andPhrygians adopted the alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians.[36]
^abNovák 2019, p. 105: "On utilise généralement les termes « néo-hittite », « syro-hittite » ou « syro-anatolien », que l'on peut toutefois contester par des arguments pertinents : le premier terme souligne apparemment une attribution ethnico-linguistique, bien que la langue hittite ne soit nullement attestée dans ces principautés ; le deuxième insiste également sur la composante hittite et néglige par ailleurs, en se focalisant sur l'espace géographique syrien, les régions anatoliennes ; le troisième, quant à lui, reste tout à fait neutre quant aux aspects culturels et chronologiques et se borne à désigner un vaste horizon géographique."
^abcNovák 2018, p. 267: "However, linguistically, no evidence for the usage of the Hittite language is given. From this point [i.e. from this linguistic standpoint] it is much more justified to speak about “Luwo-Aramaean” entities, since Aramaic and Hieroglyphic Luwian were the predominant languages spoken and written."
^abNovák 2019, p. 105: "Bien que les groupes linguistiques dominants de cette aire culturelle aient été non pas les Hittites, mais en premier lieu les Louvites et les Araméens, le qualificatif « néo-hittite », connoté culturellement, semble ici toutefois le plus adapté, à côté du terme « louvito-araméen », plus approprié d'un point de vue linguistique, dans la mesure où les souverains de ces principautés expriment dans leur titulature et dans l'iconographie un sentiment d'identité qui se rattache délibérément à la tradition de l'Empire hittite."
^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.
^Brixhe, C. and M. Lejeune (1984).Corpus des inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes. Paris.
Greenfield, Jonas C. (1998). "Arameans and Aramaic in Anatolia".XXXIVème Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. pp. 199–207.
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Colorized_per_source.jpg)
%2c_Hamadan_mint.jpg)
