outlook: aramaeans outside of syria 343
and Bit rehov are one and the same,19 while others claim that Ṣobah is
not identical with Bit rehov and has to be located to the north of Bit
rehov.20 according to the problematic Judg 18: 28, layish (identified with
dan; tell el-Qadi21) is said to have been located in a valley of Bit rehov.
this would imply that the area of Bit rehov included (parts of ) the Beqaʿ
to the hermon. But the sources do not justify any far-reaching hypothesis.
Bit maacah and tob are today only attested in the Bible.22 Ṣobah23 and
Bit rehov24 are only known from later sources, while the extra-biblical
evidence for Geshur in tell el-amarna is dependent on an emendation
(see below, section 2.).
in sum, the first traces of the aramaean tribal and tribal confederation
political entities in south and southwest syria lead into the 10th and 9th
centuries B.C., and this parallels the developments in palestine itself. the
beginnings of the northern tribal-confederation chief-/kingdom of “israel”
can be traced to the first half of the 9th century B.C. it was followed, not
long after, by the rise of the southern tribal chief-/kingdom Judah, and its
transjordanian counterparts ammon, moab, and edom (a century later).
in fact all these tribal chief-/kingdoms appear on the historical stage in
the 10th and 9th centuries B.C.; they share the same tribal structure, they
are from their origins local, non-urban, rural-pastoral population groups,
and they regulate their social relations by kinship structures (patrilineages;
family-clan-tribe). the names of the growing collective organizations refer
to their dynastic founder (Bit Ḫumri = israel in Neo-assyrian inscriptions;
Bit david = Judah in the tel dan stele25) or on toponyms (e.g., moab).
19 lipiński 2000a: 332f; id. 2006: 208; Bagg 2007: 53; halpern 2004: 183f; Weippert
2010: 258 n. 52.
20 according to Na ʾaman 1995a: 384–386 Ṣobah and Bit rehov are two distinct regions:
Ṣobah was located to the north or northwest of mount anti-lebanon, while the area of Bit
rehov was north of dan; Bit rehov was, according to Na ʾaman, the kingdom’s historical
name (and Ṣobah one if its regions), see further Na ʾaman 2002. dion 1997: 174–176 and
sader 2010: 276 also refer to two entities in the Biqaʿ: Ṣobah in the north, and Bit rehov in
the south. Ṣobah and rehov are discussed in Na ʾaman 2002 and halpern 2004: 167–189.
21 referring to layish, dan and the archaeological record, see Gass 2005: 389–397.
22 for the discussion, see lipiński 2000a: 334–345; id. 2006: 238f, 298f; lemaire 2001e.
tob may be mentioned in ea 205 and on a list of thutmosis iii, see lipiński 2000a: 336f;
lemaire 2001e: 125, Na ʾaman 2002, and Gass 2005: 494–496 proposing a possible localiza-
tion in southwestern hauran.
23 tiglath-pileser iii mentions the province of Ṣubat in the northern Beqaʿ, identified
with Ṣobah; see Weippert 2010: 258 n. 52 and Bagg 2007: 233f. Ṣobah could be written
on aramaic graffiti (8th century B.C.) found at hamath; see lipiński 2000a: 298, 311–313;
esp. 270 graffiti 12.
24 the “son [dumu] of ruhub/rehov” is attested in inscriptions of shalmaneser iii
(853); see notes 15 and 57–58. Consider the discussion in Bagg 2007: 53.
25 kai 310; ahituv 2008: 467–473; Weippert 2010: C.3.116.