outlook: aramaeans outside of syria 357
political, social, and economic structures. therefore it is crucial to decide
where economic (and ecological) factors end and ethnic ones begin
(e.g., in debates concerning pork consumption). in the search for typi-
cal aramaean remains in the iron ages, the usual procedure is to paral-
lel pottery types,87 architecture, city-planning,88 funerary customs,89 and
iconographical motifs90 of south syria/palestine with others in middle
or north syria where aramaeans are doubtlessly attested (e.g., close to
damascus).91 With regard to architecture, a widely accepted proposal is to
consider bit-hilani buildings as typically aramaean.92 indeed the bit-hilani
seems to be a syrian regional architectural structure, which developed its
special characteristics mainly from the late 10th century B.C. on—even
if there are possible earlier roots up to the hittites, thus being part of
the hittite legacy in north syria. But in the iron age the inherited late
Bronze age traditions have been reshaped in a north syrian style in order
to fit into the syrian political system, which was mainly dominated by the
aramaeans. if it remains true that no bit-hilani buildings can be identified
in luwian sites,93 the bit-hilani could indeed be an indication of a typi-
cal aramaean settlement (in transjordan, in et-tell).94 aramaean temple
architecture (in antis and with a tripartite division) appears to be a local
syrian development absent from luwian cities in syria and (except for the
sculpture decoration) without any hittite characteristics.95 the temples
in aleppo, tell tayinat, ʿain dara, and Jerusalem share here some com-
mon characteristics, even if it seems implausible to claim for the latter an
aramaean origin.
moreover, the find of aramaic inscriptions is usually considered a
clear indication of aramaean presence. in the first centuries of the 1st
millennium B.C. (as e.g., the tel dan stele, inscription of ein Gev, and
87 referring to pottery, see akkermans – schwartz 42006: 363–366 and hafÞórsson
2006: 190f.
88 for the characteristics of aramaean cities, see sader 2010: 290f.
89 for the funerary stelae, see Bonatz 2000a. the stelae have their roots in 2nd-millen-
nium syrian funerary traditions. for the funerary cult, compare Niehr 2006.
90 referring to aramaean iconography (and the hittite influences), see sader 2010:
291–293. for massive reservations against ethnic labeling in syria, see Gilibert 2011: 9f.
91 this is also the method of ilan 1999: 207f; akkermans – schwartz 42006: 366–377;
hafÞórsson 2006: 185–246, esp. 189; münger 2012.
92 akkermans – schwartz 42006: 368–374; hafÞórsson 2006: 188f; sader 2010: 293–295.
93 so sader 2010: 294.
94 But see now lehmann – killebrew 2010: 24–27.
95 akkermans – schwartz 42006: 370–372; sader 2010: 295f. they refer to aleppo
(hadad), tell tayinat, and ʿain dara.