The states called Neo-Hittite, Syro-Hittite (in older literature), or Luwian-Aramean (in modern scholarly works) were Luwian and Aramean regional polities of the Iron Age, situated in southeastern parts of modern Turkey and northwestern parts of modern Syria, known in ancient times as lands of Hatti and Aram. They arose following the collapse of the Hittite New Kingdom in the 12th century BCE, and lasted until they were subdued by the Assyrian Empire in the 8th century BCE. They are grouped together by scholars on the basis of several cultural criteria that are recognized as similar and shared between both societies: northern (Luwian) and southern (Aramean). Cultural exchange between those societies is seen as a specific regional phenomenon, particularly in light of significant linguistic distinctions between the two main regional languages, with Luwian belonging to the Anatolian group of Indo-European languages and Aramaic belonging to the Northwest Semitic group of Semitic languages. Several questions related to the regional grouping of Luwian and Aramaean states are viewed differently among scholars, including some views that are critical towards such grouping in general.
Name
One of the most contested issues among scholars within the field is related to the choice of the qualifier for this group of states.
Neo-Hittite states The most commonly used qualifier for these states is Neo-Hittite. It has been criticized because it can mislead readers into thinking these states were ethno-linguistically Hittite, even though the Hittite language is not attested in them.
However, Mirko Novák notes that the qualifier "Neo-Hittite", culturally connoted, seems however the most suitable here—alongside "Luwo-Aramean", more appropriate from a linguistic point of view—insofar as the sovereigns of these principalities express in their titulature and in the iconography a feeling of identity that attaches itself deliberately to the tradition of the Hittite Empire. According to Novák, The term „Neo-Hittite“ reflects on the inherited elements from the Hittite imperial period, such as the iconography of kings and gods in the visual art or the titularity of the kings. This ideological tradition constructed by the “Neo-Hittite” entities effected the Assyrian designation of the Northern Levant as “Land of Ḫatti”.
Luwian-Aramean states Some scholars have been using Luwian-Aramean and variations thereof (e.g. Aramean-Luwian, Luwo-Aramaean, Luwio-Aramean) which are derived from endonymic (native) names for Luwians and Arameans. According to Novák, Luwo-Aramean is more appropriate than Neo-Hittite from a linguistic standpoint, "since Aramaic and Hieroglyphic Luwian were the predominant languages spoken and written." However, quoting Novák, Factually, both terms “Neo-Hittite” and “Luwo-Aramaean” describe one and the same region and culture.
Others The labels Syrian-Anatolian or Syro-Anatolian have been criticized for using exonymic (foreign) names, based on the Greek term Anatolia, combined with an anachronistic application of the term Syria, in the sense that was introduced much later, by ancient Greeks, as their designation for Arameans and their land, Aram. (See also Name of Syria.) Such preference for foreign terms, advocated by some western scholars, is viewed as being culturally biased, and thus insensitive towards native (endonymic) terminology. Anachronistic uses of Syria in modern scholarly literature were additionally challenged after the recent discovery of the bilingual Çineköy inscription from the 8th century BCE, written in the Luwian and Phoenician languages. The inscription contained references to the neighbouring Assyria, inscribed in a specific form that renders as Syria, thus providing additional (and in the same time the oldest) evidence for the dominant scholarly view on the origins and primary meanings of the term Syria, that originated as an apheretic form of the term Assyria, and was redefined much later, by ancient Greeks, who introduced a territorial distinction between two names, and started to use term Syria as a specific designation for western regions (ancient Aram). For ancient Luwians, Syria was designation for Assyria proper, thus revealing the later Greek use of the term Syria as very different from its original meaning, and also anachronistic if used in modern scientific descriptions of historical realities, related to Luwian and Aramean states of the Iron Age. The qualifier Syro-Hittite has been criticized as well for anachronistically using the prefix Syro-, but also on the grounds that it overemphasizes the "Syrian" (i.e. Aramean) aspect while neglecting the Luwian one. The term post-Hittite states has also been proposed, although it is by definition too broad, as it can be used and has been used in reference to other Iron Age polities that flourished after the collapse of the Hittite Empire, from the 12th to the 6th century BCE, such as Phrygia or even the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age transition
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
