40 dagmar kühn
it is not entirely clear whether the eponym refers to a famous histori-
cal ancestor of the tribe or dynasty or to a legendary or mythic figure to
whom the tribe or the royal dynasty traced its descent.19 h. Sader postu-
lates historical founders of a dynasty for at least some of the eponyms.20
the importance of the genealogical link with the eponyms obviously lost
its significance over time. it was even possible to become a member of a
bit without any tribal or ethnic connections.21 the expression “bit + pn”
soon merely defined a geographic affiliation.22 not even a dynasty change
had an effect on the name of the state. Furthermore, it must be noted that
the expression “bit + pn ” was used primarily by the assyrians and not by
the aramaeans themselves. in the aramaic inscriptions of the aramaean
kingdoms, the kings mostly refer to the geographic name of the state.23
the genealogical link with the ancestor of the tribe was apparently no
longer the only important aspect for their identity and representation.
instead, the kings acquired their identity from the new organization as
a city-state or kingdom, which was expressed in representative architec-
ture. this new identity, independent of tribal affiliation, guaranteed the
loyalty of the indigenous non-aramaean populace. the genealogical ties
and the familiar links nevertheless remained important for inner cohesion
because they guaranteed the continuity of the dynasty.
1.3 Ethnic Diversityespecially at the fringes of Syria, which, in contrast to central Syria, were
always inhabited, we find mixed populations of aramaeans and indige-
nous non-aramaeans after the establishment of the aramaean kingdoms.
the expanding neo-assyrian empire also had a decisive influence on the
composition of the population in the conquered regions. the prevailing
ethnic composition made up the special cultural coloring of the single
state.24 in religion (through the adoption of indigenous gods and their
19 cf. dion 1997: 228–231 for discussion.
20 Sader 1987: 273 assumes a historical background for Gusi and Gabbar. She thinks
that these two were the founders of dynasties.
21 Fales 2011a: 213 with n. 4. he therefore rejects the traditional model of a semi-
nomadic proto-history of the aramaeans and prefers a model of “self-appointment.”
22 Sader 1987: 273 hints at the difference between the expression “bit + pn” for the
territory and “mār + pn” or the aramaic variant “br + pn” for the ruling dynasty in this
territory.
23 röllig 2000a: 181 n. 19.
24 Kühne 2009: 54 speaks of interaction spheres, in which material goods and ideas
were exchanged. For the region of the lower Khabur his archaeological findings reveal that