outlook: aramaeans outside of syria 359
resources, and infrastructure also played a major role. in north palestine
during the iron ages a strong orientation to the aramaean “syrian” states
can be observed, when architecture, pottery, ivories, iconography, reli-
gion, funerary customs, marriage policy, economy and trade, and political
alliances of the north palestinian political entities in Cis- and transjordan
are oriented more toward syria and phoenicia than to Judah and philistia.
Clear borders cannot be drawn without doubt, especially in the area of the
sea of Galilee and to the north.98 therefore, the interpretation and eth-
nic labeling of northern sites are controversial: according to e. arie,99 in
dan (tell el-Qadi) the architectural elements, the scepter head,100 the two
bronze plaques,101 and the fragments of anthropomorphic faces102 repre-
sent the period of the rule of aram-damascus over the inhabitants of dan
(who are from another aramaean tribe), while a. Biran,103 or C. uehlinger104
use the same material remains and claim their israelite provenance—and
an “israelite” dan.
the character of north palestine and south syria as an open frontier,
which enabled the coexistence and/or amalgamation of different eth-
nic groups in the area, creating a new regionally fragmented typical cul-
ture and gradually merging (after the end of the late Bronze age) into
a larger corporate entity and identity, leads to the conclusion that the
area and its population were more linked to the aramaeans (and other
population groups) than we will ever be able to learn. referring to the
iron age i, d. ilan105 has pointed out that, “in a region such as the north-
eastern Galilee, the variety of possible reactions to environmental con-
straints, social fragmentation and political configuration is so great and
so temporally dynamic that it is hard to arrive at a convincing reconstruc-
tion of the political system.... ” this is surely true for the area not only
during the iron age i but also later. even if it is not to be doubted that
palestine was confronted in the 9th century B.C. by aram-damascus, an
invader from outside, other than the layers of destruction there is little
evidence of the newcomers. Of course it has to be taken into account
98 this is also the final result of ilan 1999: 205–208, who points to the coexistence of
different ethnic groups in the areas of Galilee, the Golan, and the hule Valley (esp. dan).
99 arie 2008: 37.
100 Biran 1994: 198.
101 Biran 1999.
102 Biran 1994: fig. 133 and pakman 2003 (arguing for phoenician influence).
103 Biran 1994: 165–209.
104 uehlinger 1997: 116f, 139.
105 ilan 1999: 209.