“‘War and Peace’ in the Origins of the Arameans.” Pp. 861-874 in Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. 52e RAI Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006, eds. H. Neumann, et al. AOAT 401. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014.

Introduction

In the past, scholars have proposed various models to explain the origin of the Arameans. Connected with the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age, these models have often been one dimensional: e.g. the invasion model, the migration model, or the collapse model (Sader 1992;Schniedewind 2002). Furthermore, scholars have not always distinguished between the ultimate origination of the Arameans and the expansion and the rise of the Aramean political entities. It is primarily the latter with which this essay is interested.

From the textual and archaeological evidence, it is becoming clear that mono-causal explanations alone are insufficient. The sheer complexity of the geography of Syria demands a more comprehensive explanation for the rise of the Aramean states. The very designation "Arameans" masks the fact they were not a unified group, except in general terms of language. But even in this, their diversity is reflected in the various dialects in the earliest Old Aramaic inscriptions. While scholars have often attempted to root their explanations in the study of the sedentarization of pastoral nomads, it is clear that there is never simply one explanation for why nomads settle, or why they take to nomadism and pastoralism again (van der Steen 1999, 171;Streck 2001;Szuchman 2007).

In his critique essay, McClellan (1992, 165) pointed out that, within Syria at the point of the transition to the Iron Age, at least two major geographic/economic spheres can be distinguished: the western coastal Mediterranean sphere, and the Inland Syria sphere. We can also divide this Inland Syria sphere into three regions: Assyrian, Hittite and Levantine (i.e., central and southern Syria).

Following McClellan's distinction, this essay argues for a regional explanation for the origins of the Arameans, realizing that their origins in one region may have multiple causes which may or may not necessarily match their origins in another region. Through a detailed analysis of the different geographical regions, a better description of their origins can be obtained.

Due to space limitations, we cannot discuss: (1) the possible connections with the Aḫlamu and Sutu; and (2) the possible linguistic connections of Aramaic back to Amorite, and even back to Eblaite (highly speculative because of gaps in linguistic evidence). Also for the sake of space, we will only discuss the Assyrian and Hittite regions (for fuller treatment, see Younger 2007).

The Assyrian Region

The Assyrian region can be defined as the Jezireh. It was "the natural hinterland of Assyria" and made Assyria "essentially 'a steppe-bound empire'" (Kühne 1995, 69). The need for dry-farming land seems to have been one of the motives for the constant Assyrian drive to the west, with the result that the Jezireh, especially the Ḫabur area, became part of "Assyria proper" (Postgate 1992).

After the Middle Bronze Age, this region underwent Hurrianization (Zadok 1991, 108) leading to the establishment of the kingdom of Mittani (Kühne 1999, 210) with its core in the Ḫabur region (Oates/Oates/MacDonald 1997). Later, weakened by wars with Egypt, the Hittites and Assyria the Jezireh underwent Assyrianization (Machinist 1982, 80;Postgate 1983-84). This process is particularly evidenced in the mass deportations that created vacated areas (Röllig 1978, 428-429), and the shift from "Mittanian" to "Middle Assyrian" material culture. 1 This shift is manifest in the creation of numerous self-contained Assyrian communities (Machinist 1982, 84) at major sites like Dur-Katlimmu (modern Tell Sheikh Hamad) (Kühne 1983-84;Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996), and Guzana (Tel Halaf) (Güterbock 1958), as well as smaller dunnu ("fortified agricultural center") like Dunni-Aššur ? (Tell Sabi Abyad) (Wiggermann 2000, 175) and Dunnu-ša-Uzibi (Giricano) (Radner 2004). The population reductions 2 may indicate a move from urban life to pastoralism (Liverani 1987). On the other hand, they may evince the denigrating effects of regional conflicts and the results of the Assyrian deportation policy (Lyon 2000, 104).

During the twelfth through tenth centuries, the Jezireh underwent an Aramaization process. Four stages for this process can be distinguished.

Stage One: Aramean Pastoralist Expansion (ca. 1197-1114 BC)

It appears that not long after the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233-1197) the Aramaization of the Jezireh began with the expansion of pastoralist nomads filling some of the void created by the depopulation of Hanigalbat (Bunnens 1999, 611-612). This expansion eventually brought about conflict with the Assyrian kings. According to Assyrian Chronicle 4, towards the end of this period there may have been a famine which placed further stress on the region.

1 The evidence for this succession in material culture is drawn primarily from two sources: ceramic assemblages and cylinder seal styles. The ceramic assemblages demonstrate a cessation of Hurrian Nuzi Ware and Ḫabur Ware. The introduction of new popular types include carinated flat or ringbased bowls and various shapes with nipple bases. Assyrian imperial control is also evinced by the centralized production of a standard pottery repertoire throughout the Jezireh. See Pfälzner 1995; (Klengel 2000). The inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I and Ashurbel-kala remain far and away the earliest testimony to Aramean origins that we possess. They give the impression of successful emperors who campaigned as far away as the Mediterranean Sea. But it is clear that both rulers struggled against the incursions of the Arameans. It is also clear that both kings believed that they had a right to rule over this region as their ancestors had in the 13th and 12th centuries. According to Tiglath-pileser I's inscriptions, 3 Aramean groups were carrying out raids along the Euphrates river, from Rapiqu to Carchemish. Tiglath-pileser crossed the river at least twenty-eight times in pursuit of these Aramean contingents and defeated them in the vicinity of Mount Bishri. Thus their territory was to the west of the river. Nothing is said about their presence east of the Euphrates (Bunnens 1999, 606). While Tiglath-pileser I's inscriptions are important in this location of an Aramean enclave in the Mount Bishri area, it is important to remember that this is only a single testimony to an Aramean homeland. It does not rule out the possibility of other Aramean enclaves and should not be treated as proof of the ultimate place for the origin of the Arameans. But it is an important witness. It is clear that Tiglath-pileser I's victories were not decisive.

In some recent studies of Aramean origins, the fragmentary Assyrian Chronicle 4 4 has been discounted (Pitard 1996, 299). But with closer scrutiny the text reveals a number of important pieces of evidence (see Younger 2007). First of all, its events can be accurately dated since the text makes reference to the death of Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē and the accession of his son Marduk-šāpik-zēri. Thus these events date to 1082/1081 BC (Tiglath-pileser I's 32nd year). Second, the vocabulary of war is clearly used in lines 3-7, and thus it is very likely that the conflict between the "houses of the Arameans" and the Assyrians is in view. More specifically, the grammar indicates the bītāt māt Aramāya "houses of the Arameans" is the subject of a number of plural verb forms: "they plundered," "seized," "captured," "took" (2x), "increased" and "seized." Third, it is manifest that there was famine bad enough that cannibalism took place. It may well be that the famine was the result of climatic change during this period (Neumann/Parpola 1987;Kirleis/Herles 2007). Fourth, it is interesting that people escaped "[t]o the mountains of Habrūri for (their) lives," and that this is the very same place mentioned by Aššur-dan II who "brought back the weary It is also interesting that a number of the same district names occur in this Chronicle and in an Assyrian administrative document from the reign of Tiglath-pileser I 5 : Kilizi, Idu, Katmuḫu, and Nineveh. Through a comparison of the texts, it is clear that Tiglath-Pileser I lost control of, at a minimum, the northern Jezireh. 6

The situation deteriorated even more during the reign of Ashur-bel-kala. He fought the Arameans not only on the middle Euphrates, but also in the Habur region. In the Broken Obelisk (RIMA 2, A.0.89.7, iii.1-32), 7 campaigns directed against the Arameans are mentioned at least fifteen times. It is important to note that Ashur-bel-kala's campaign against the Arameans in the Kašiyari mountains near the sources of the Habur is the same area where his father had fought the Mušku. 8 Ashur-bel-kala's campaigns seem to have had little effect since he does not mention the conquest of any Aramean cities or any tribute from them. Apparently, the Arameans gradually gained the upper hand in the later part of his reign (Lipiński 2000, 99).

There is now new evidence from his reign. While the recently discovered texts from Giricano (ancient Dunnu-ša-Uzibi) are contracts (Radner 2004), they bear objective testimony to the conflict between the Assyrians and Arameans. All the texts (except one) are dated by eponym, mostly that of Ili-iddina (either 1069 or 1068, the 5th or 6th year of Ashur-bel-kala). During the eponym of Aššur-rem-nišešu (either 1070 or 1069, 4th or 5th regnal year), the year before that of Ili-iddina, Ashur-bel-kala's annals record fighting in Dunnu-ša-Lisur-sala-Aššur in the district of Šinamu. 9 The city of Šinamu 10 is located a mere 40 km west of Giricano on the southern bank of the Tigris (not far west of Üçtepe) and is mentioned in one of the Giricano texts (Radner 2004, 90, Vs. line 12). More battles took place in the Kašiyari mountains south of the Tigris and in the region of Nabula (modern Girnavaz).

The Middle Assyrian occupation at Giricano included at least three strata and spanned about 120-160 years (Radner 2004, 72). The beginnings of this occupation are directly above the remains of the Mittanian period; and the Middle Assyrian strata are separated from the early Iron Age remains by a layer of debris about 20-30 cm in thickness (Radner 2004, 5). The early Iron Age remains contain the so-called "grooved-type" (Bartl 2001) or "groovy" pottery (Roaf and Schachner 2005, 119-122) known especially in eastern Anatolia. 11 7 Some scholars have questioned the historicity of some of these events since the phraseology of Ashur-bel-kala's texts is in some cases very similar to that of Tiglath-pileser I. But as Bunnens has noted, it would be hypercritical to doubt the very fact of an Aramean presence in the area and of the threat it represented to the Assyrians (Bunnens 1999, 606). 8 Tigath-pileser I (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1, i.62-88): LÚ.MEŠ KUR muš-ka-a-ia.MEŠ; Aššur-bel-kala (RIMA 2, A.0.89.7, iii.8b-17a): KASKAL šá KUR a-ri-me. 9 RIMA 2, A.0.89.7, iii.14. Radner 2004, 71, n. 122, for line 14: ina URU.⌈du ! -ni⌉-ša-m li-šur-sa-lad a-šur šá pa-ha-at URU.ši-na-mu im-ta-ha-as. Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.89.7 iii.14 reads: ina URU.⌈MEŠ⌉-ni ša m li-šur-sa-la-d a-šur šá pa-ha-at URU.ši-na-mu im-ta-ha-as. 10 This city is mentioned in the newly published texts from Giricano (Text 10, line 12). See Radner 2004, 90. Identified with Pornak by Kessler 1980Nashef 1982, 249. 11 In the past, it has been assumed that this "grooved-type pottery" was a marker of the Mušku.

However, as Bartl 2001, 398, notes, "the broad distribution of that pottery which is found in an area of nearly 700 km (E-W) x 500 km (N-S) which exceeds the documented 'Mušku area' by far, makes this assumption impossible, apart from the fact that the identification of a cultural complex mainly defined by pottery with specific ethnic groups seems highly speculative." Thus on historical and geographical grounds an identification with the Mušku must be ruled out. While the distribution of the groovy pottery corresponds to some extent with the Nairi lands, it is apparent that this pottery should not be associated with any one ethnicity since it was used by a variety of "War and Peace" in the Origins of the Arameans

865

Although the Broken Obelisk does not provide us with an exact date for the collapse of Assyrian control over the Upper Tigris region, the tablets from Giricano offer a good clue, as it is unlikely that the Assyrian control over the area lasted for long after the year 1069/1068 BC. What is clear is that the Arameans were responsible for the end of the Assyrian dominion. Roaf and Schachner (2005, 119) conclude: "When the Assyrians returned to this region in the early ninth century, it was part of the lands of Nairi and was dominated by Arameans."

Stage Three: Assyrian Weakness and Aramean State Formation

(ca. 1055-935 BC) From roughly the end of the reign of Ashur-bel-kala to Aššur-dan II the Assyrian monarchy was characterized by political and military weakness. Little direct information is available, but it is easy to deduce that the Arameans were now the superior power and occupied much of what had once been regarded as Assyrian territory. Various Aramean penetrations led to the abandonment of Assyrian farmland with parts of the population taking refuge in other regions, e.g. Šubria or Ḫabrūri. 12 Thus during the Iron I, a considerable change took place in the Jezireh so that by the 9th century much of the population was now Aramean in areas formerly under the control of Assyria (Roaf 2001, 366;Fales 2011;Tenu 2006).

Although its domination over the Jezireh was dissipating throughout this period (Postgate 1992, 247-263), Assyria may not have lost complete control over the Middle and Lower Habur. It appears that there were 'pockets' or 'islands' of Assyrians which managed to endure even in precarious circumstances (Kühne 1995, 74-79). Control of some strategic outposts seems to have persisted (e.g. Dur-Katlimmu, Tell Sheikh Hamad: see Kühne 1998, 282-284;Liverani 1988). In important recent discoveries, textual evidence of local rulers subordinate to Assyria around 1100 BC has been obtained from Tell Taban (ancient Tābētu) 13 (Ohnuma/Numoto/Okada 1999;Maul 2006) and Tell Bderi (ancient Dur-Aššurketti-lešer) (Pfälzner 1990;Maul 1992) on the middle Habur. A local ruler, Bēl-ēriš of Šadikanni, records on a clay cylinder his deeds (RIMA 2, A.0.96.2001) and admits to being a vassal of the Assyrian king Aššur-reša-iši II (971-967 BC), indicates that Assyria's political influence stretched that far west during this period. peoples in the region. In the Upper Tigris region, it is an indicator of the end of Middle Assyrian control (Roaf/Schachner 2005, 120). 12 Parker 2001, 169, 230-242. It appears that at several sites there was a reduction of building activity in this period which was only resumed in the 9th century. For example, Tell al-Rimah was abandoned and the later Neo-Assyrian occupation was on a smaller scale than that of the Late Bronze Age (Roaf 2001, 366). 13 The inscribed clay cylinders from Tell Bderi inform us of a hitherto unknown local dynasty of Tābētu in the land of Mari. The third generation king by the name of Aššur-ketti-lešer reoccupies the site of Tell Bderi and gives it the name of Dur-Aššur-ketti-lešer. The līmu Bēlu-libūr dates the texts to the year 1096 of the reign of Tiglath-pileser I. Maul suggests that the dynasty may have had Assyrian roots because the kings carry personal names with the element Aššur. In any case, it demonstrates a close relationship to if not a dependency on Aššur. On the other hand, the designation with the title "king" seems to indicate an unusual amount of independence from the central Assyrian government which this dynasty cherished (Kühne 1995, 74).

Stage Four: Early Renewed Conflict (934-884 BC)

Aššur-dan II, Adad-nirari II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, fought the new Aramean polities of the Jezireh, believing that they were recreating an old empire that was still rightfully theirs. Postgate (1992, 257) notes: "The [early Neo-Assyrian] kings lovingly record the resettlement of erstwhile Assyrians on erstwhile Assyrian land, and tell us in whose reign recaptured cities had fallen to the Aramean intruders. The years when the Euphrates was the frontier to the west had not been forgotten." To sum up, Assyria began to lose its hegemony over the Jezireh sometime after the reign of Ashur-narari III (1193-1188 BC). The actual Aramean Landnahme took place rapidly ( van Driel 2005, 8). Some of the Aramean groups that penetrated the Jezireh created political entities (e.g. Bīt Baḫiani and Bīt Zamani -and possibly Bēt Sullel/Azallu and Baliḫ). Others appear as confederations of various sedentary political groups (e.g. the Lāqēans -including Bīt Ḫalupē, and the Temanites). Still others are confederations of nonsedentary tribal affiliations (e.g. the Ḫatallu -composed of the Sarugu, Luḫuāya, and Amatu clans).

The Hittite Region

During the Iron I period (1200-900 BC), this region can be defined and characterized by political and cultural continuity with the previous empire period. This region had natural geographic connections with Anatolia. Political continuity is documented in the direct dynastic ancestry between the rulers of a number of the Neo-Hittite states and the old line from Carchemish (Hawkins 2000). Cultural continuity is manifest in Hittite monumental architecture and reliefs and in the use of the Luwian language. The monumental architecture and reliefs are part of the new foundations and re-foundations that characterize the new urbanization of the region. 14 The persistence of the Luwian language was very important. The hieroglyphic Luwian script may have functioned as an identity marker, linking them with the glorious past of the Hittite empire. Such a link may even have been felt to be more important than the more practical advantages offered by the West Semitic alphabetic script. The fact remains that the hieroglyphic script continued to be used until the demise of the Neo-Hittite states, despite it being not only a more complicated and archaic writing system, but also not even particularly well suited to the language it recorded, as its syllabary cannot record consonantal clusters, a frequent feature of Indo-European languages (Payne 2006, 125). The earliest Aramaic inscription from the region (Kulamuwa's golden container) dates to around 830 BC (Tropper 1993, 50-53;Lemaire 1990).

This political and cultural continuity impacted the rise of the Arameans. Before the beginning of the first millennium, there is virtually no evidence, textual or otherwise, of Ara- 14 Mazzoni 1994;Orthmann 1971, 469-471;Akkermans/Schwartz 2003, 366-377;. This emulation of Hittite artistic conventions and motifs is most effectively seen in the monumental architecture and sculpture, particularly the use of guardian figures like lions and sphinxes at gateways, carved orthostats lining the base of walls, and iconographic details. See Winter 1983, 177-197. See now Pucci 2009; Gilibert 2011.

"War and Peace" in the Origins of the Arameans 867 means in this region. There are some political entities within the region that never evince any apparent Aramean social elements within them: Carchemish; Malatya (Melid); Gurgum; and Kummuḫ (Commagene). On the other hand, a number of states show evidence from the early 1st millennium of a Luwian population element: (1) Palistin/Walistin/Patina/ʿUmq; (2) Masuwari/Bīt Adini; (3) Yadiya/Samʾal/Bīt Gabbari; and (4) Hamath and Luʿaš. All of these have hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions that pre-date their earliest Aramaic texts.

Palistin/Walistin/Patina/ʿUmq

In recent excavations of the citadel of Aleppo, orthostats from the temple of the famous storm-god of Halab were uncovered (Kohlmeyer 2000;Gonnella/Khayyata/Kohlmeyer 2005). One of these orthostats contains a hieroglyphic Luwian inscription of Taita, the king of Palistin dating to the late 11 th century BC. 15 This Taita is also known from an inscription from Tell Taʿyinat (CHLI 1, 365-367, frag 3) and two texts from Meharde and Sheizar (CHLI 1, 415-419). It appears that Palistin or Walistin was the Luwian name for the kingdom known in other later sources as Patina/ʿUmq, 16 and that Taita controlled a sizeable kingdom encompassing the Amuq valley in the west, the region of Aleppo in the east, and a significant part of the Orontes in the south (perhaps including Hamath). 17 Thus at this time, it appears that Palistin controlled the areas that later became the political entities of Bīt Agusi, Hamath and Patina/ʿUmq.

Figure 1

Excavations at Tell Taʿyinat (Harrison 2001b;) evince Luwian cultural continuity. The first building phase of the Iron I period, in particular, manifests ties with Hittite culture. 18 The evidence also points to a decisive shift in the political order that coincided with the rise to power of the Arameans in Patina/ʿUmq (Harrison 2001a, 142).

Masuwari/Bīt Adini

Luwian inscriptions have confirmed that the Luwian name of Til Barsip was Masuwari (Hawkins 1983). However, no Aramaic inscriptions pre-dating the Assyrian period have been discovered (Bunnens 1999, 613). There is a trilingual inscription from Arslan Tash (ancient Hadatu) written in hieroglyphic Luwian, Aramaic and Assyrian cuneiform and dating to the 8th century. 19 At present, only the Luwian has been fully published . Nonetheless, it shows that the use of the Luwian name Masuwari for Til Barsip persisted for a time beyond the Assyrian conquest. 15 Hawkins 2009;2011. 16 It may be that the name Patina is derived from Wadasatini as noted by Yamada 2000, 96, n. 71.

He states: "The transformation from *Watsatin-to Patin is not impossible, admitting the sound change w>b>p and the fall of the intervocalic -ts with the accent being positioned on the first syllable." 17 CHLI 1, 417, §1; cf. 416, §2. "Kupapiya, wife of Taita, the Hero of the country Watasatini." 18 The "Hadad" of one of Hazael's booty inscriptions is most likely the deity, not the personal name of a ruler of ʿUmq in the latter part of the 9th century BC (see Younger 2005). 19 There are apparently three similar inscriptions in Aramaic, Assyrian and Hieroglyphic, on the reverse of the Aleppo (north) lion slab (the Assyrian is a duplicate of the Raqqa lion cuneiform inscription). For the Assyrian, see Galter 2004a;2004b. The Aramaic is being published by W. Röllig (preliminary discussion, see Röllig 2000).

K. Lawson Younger,Jr. 868 The Luwian texts demonstrate the existence of a four-generation Hittite dynasty that ruled from roughly 975 to 875 BC over an extensive kingdom that was the rough equivalent to that of the later Aramean state of Bīt Adini (Bunnens 1999, 613). However, for the name of one of the Masuwarean rulers (Hamiyata), an Aramaic etymology has been suggested. 20 By 870 BC, according to the inscriptions of Aššurnasirpal II, an Aramean ruler of Bīt Adini, Aḫuni was in control of this area. Moreover, according to one of Shalmaneser III's inscriptions (Kurkh Monolith,RIMA 3,A.0.102.2,, Aramean activity in this region occurred during the reign of Aššur-rabi II (1012-972 BC), when "the land of Aram" seized the cities of Pitru (biblical Pethor) and Mutkinu, cities very close to Til-Barsip. How best to interpret this data and reconstruct the history of Masuwari/Bīt Adini is a question that we cannot enter into here. But, for the purposes of our argument, it is clear that there was a mixed Luwian and Aramean population in this area.

Yadiya/Samʾal/Bīt Gabbari/(Uša?)

Samʾal (Zincirli), perhaps known a Uša (Schramm 1983), shows clear cultural continuity with the earlier Hittite period . The indigenous name of Yʾdy might have been based on a Luwian ethnicon *Yādiya "the Yādaean (country)" (Starke 1999). A study of its inscriptions reveals its mixed character. While its inscriptions are predominantly Aramaic (Tropper 1993), Luwian played an important role. Its earliest inscription (9th century) is in hieroglyphic Luwian: a black basalt stela from Karaburçlu (5 km north of Zincirli), and Luwian was utilized up to the end of the kingdom of Samʾal, concurrent with Aramaic, as demonstrated by two seals of Bar-Rakib (Lemaire 2001). Several of the Samʾalian kings had Anatolian names (also possibly a military officer, if Lemaire's analysis of an inscribed garnish of a shield is correct). Moreover, the architecture and reliefs reflect definite Neo-Hittite connections. Thus at Samʾal, there is clear evidence of a mixed Luwian/Aramean population and of significant acculturation (Novák 2005). 21

Hamath and Luʿaš (Luḫutu)

Excavations of the tell at Hama have uncovered a citadel with its gatehouse, courtyard and monumental buildings with reliefs and lions (Iron Age levels F and E) that clearly evince a Neo-Hittite context. The Luwian inscriptions from this region also attest to a cultural continuum. 22 Hamath appears in the Hebrew Bible with its king, Toʿi (tʿy), being a significant ally of David (2 Sam 8:9-10). The name Toʿi is best identified as Hurrian. 23 So too is the name of a 20 The etymology of "Hamiyata" does not correspond very well with known Luwian components, but does with Aramaic (though perhaps the final word on this has not be given). The Aramaic name ʿAmmī-yadaʿ ("The paternal uncle knows") certainly works (Bunnens 2006, 86, with list of other suggestions). If the name is Aramaic, I believe an even more likely derivation would be the Aramaic name ʿAmmi-yataʾ ("The paternal uncle has delivered"). 21 The Kulamuwa Inscription's reference to the mškbm and the bʿrrm may allude to a ethnic stratification (KAI 24,(14)(15) 24 Toʿi's son, Joram (in the MT) is sent to greet and bless David after the victory over Hadadezer of Aram Zobah. Importantly, the name "Joram" is preserved in a few manuscripts as Hadadram, which is clearly behind the Iεδδουραν of the Septuagint. "Hadad-ram" is Aramaic and "Jo-ram" is Hebrew, the theophoric element (here the first component of each name) being switched. This perhaps could be a result of the alliance in which a name change has taken place. Or it could be the result of redactional activity within the Hebrew text for theological reasons. Hamath's rulers had non-Semitic, mostly Hurrian, names until the Aramean Zakkur seized power at the end of the 9th century, and his Aramaic inscription is followed by others. Moreover, this dynastic change between Luwian and Aramaic elements, as Mazzoni (1994, 325) notes, may be reflected in the foundation of Hazrak as a new capital.