358 angelika berlejung
other aramaic inscriptions96) this is surely true. But during the subse-
quent centuries aramaic became the diplomatic language and then very
quickly also the lingua franca of the Neo-assyrian and later of the Neo-
Babylonian and persian empires. therefore, the presence of aramaic
script or texts is not necessarily a marker for the physical presence of an
aramaean individual.
recently, it has been proposed that the syrian way of mingling the
(“aramaean,” “luwian,” “hittite,” etc.) styles was a conscious attempt to
shape an innovative political discourse and belongs to the political pro-
cess of self-definition.97 the use (or avoidance) of a style or iconography
associated with certain group identities would then be the result of a cul-
tural choice involving a conscious acceptance or rejection. according to
this proposal the mixed cultures, architectures, iconographies, and styles
of syria and palestine are the result of mediating social conflicts and serv-
ing local and/or international politics. even if this suggestion has some
attraction it has to be handled with care: the objective evaluation of differ-
ent styles, the option of conscious cultural choices or combinations, and
the high estimation of innovation (over tradition) seems to be an anach-
ronistic perspective.
in general, it can be observed that the aramaean political entities were
basically multiethnic as well as multilingual, and that the intense and
peaceful acculturation of the settlers from syria/aramaeans in palestine
proceeded quickly. therefore, present archaeology tries to avoid ethnic
models and categories in favor of socioeconomic interpretations to explain
the changes in the material culture as the result of social, economic, and
ecological factors. in the case of aramaeans and israelites it appears clear
that their social and economic structure and cultures (basically those of
tribal societies) were closely related from the beginning, mingling with
each other from the iron age i on, with the result that their culturally spe-
cific differentiation within palestine is hardly possible. maybe indeed the
early aramaean presence in the north of palestine is one of the reasons why
there are obvious differences in the material culture between north and
south palestine, but surely the north-south differences in rainfall, climate,
96 for early aramaic inscriptions, see sass 2005: 83–88; avigad 1997: 280–319 registers
107 stamp seals and impressions with aramaic legends; unfortunately, the provenance of
the majority is unknown. for the aramaic ostraca of pre-persian times, consider fitzmyer –
kaufman 1992: B.1.
97 Brown 2008: 235–259 (with reference to kulamuwa and his mingling of luwian,
aramaean, assyrian, and phoenician elements), and discussed in Gilibert 2011: 79–83.