society, institutions, law, and economy 39
conquering villages and towns and establishing kingdoms.13 in assyrian
and aramaean sources of the 10th and 9th centuries B.c., we already
encounter élites holding both political power and economic control
within a certain area. the assyrians do not generally call them aramaeans
anymore. the annals mention single small states instead. in place of chief-
doms and loose tribal confederations, several of these aramaean small
states established kingdoms, whose power was concentrated in an urban
center with a royal administration and representative architecture.14 For-
tified towns with monumental buildings like palaces and temples dem-
onstrated the prestige of the ruling élite. nevertheless, these rulers kept
their tribal structures alive as the heritage of their semi-nomadic past.15
Fundamental to tribal societies is the high value they place on family lin-
eage and close relationships in all sectors of society (social, political, and
economic). as a result, a strong social connection is manifest in all levels
of society as well as within a family or clan.16 whether these were connec-
tions within the ruling élite surrounding the king or within the rest of the
population does not make any difference.17
Some characteristics of tribal societies can still be observed among the
settled aramaeans, such as the ancestor cult, the purpose of which is to
maintain the social status of the dead within the family and clan, and to
secure the protection of the family by the ancestors. the many statues and
stelae dedicated to ancestor cult prove the importance the aramaeans
placed on their ancestors. another tribal element is visible in the desig-
nation of several aramaean states as bītu/byt (house) in connection with
an eponym that marks the state as the territory of a special tribe, such
as Bit Gabbari, Bit Baḫiani, Bit agusi, Bit adini, and Bit Zamanni. the
inhabitants of such a small state were called ʻsonsʼ (br) of this eponym.18
13 Sader 1992; ead. 2000; niehr 2010a: 204–209.
14 Lipiński 2000a: 512–514 hints at “degrees of development.” in Babylonia the ara-
maean tribes did not found city-states but continued to live as nomads and semi-nomads.
in his view, these tribes contributed to the aramaization of Babylonia; cf. also the contribu-
tion of m. Streck in this volume.
15 Bunnens 2009: 73 thinks that the value of the tribal structures was further increased
during the decline of the great states at the end of the Late Bronze age: “the weakening
of centralized political structures forced local populations to adopt forms of organization
that could no longer be based on a hierarchy of power represented by an administration
headed by a king. the only possible alternative was kinship.”
16 tribal structures do not necessary depend on the principle of equality. they continue
to work in hierarchical societies today. cf. Bunnens 2009: 72f, 77.
17 For characteristics of tribal societies, see Szuchman 2009: 62f and Bunnens 2009:
72f.
18 dion 1997: 225f.