206 dominik bonatz
works were probably a feature of assyrian culture both at the center of
the empire and on its periphery. In the territorially small aramaean city-
states, the fundamental political conditions were very different. visual
culture was determined not by state centralism but by regional auton-
omy. the coexistence of older hittite-Luwian and newly established ara-
maean traditions has often been discussed in this context.3 In the older
research literature, a common interpretation of the stylistic differences
between sculptural works was that the various ethnic groups used these
works to define their visual culture and that the works even expressed
rivalries between groups.4 But the factors that cause a historical—though
not necessarily an ethnic—style to emerge in visual art are much more
complex than such a restricted view is capable of explaining. In the trib-
ally based world of the aramaeans, social synthesis and acculturation pro-
cesses most likely had a deeper influence on the development of visual
art than did linguistic and cultural boundaries.5 More recent publications
have sufficiently considered this issue6 or have circumvented the problem
entirely by excluding aramaean art from their observations.7
In terms of its selection, the following treatment of “aramaean art”
places greater emphasis on the sociopolitical context of the sculptural
works than on formal or thematic criteria. It is not even possible to use
the language of the inscriptions on some of the monuments as a crite-
rion for judging their cultural affiliation,8 since different writing systems
were adopted, particularly in the context of the aramaean dynasties. the
discussion will therefore focus on sculptural works from cities or city-
states that were predominantly governed by aramaean élites. very dif-
ferent ethnic, cultural, and political conditions often prevailed in these
cities. samʾal, situated in a side valley of the amanus Mountains, was the
northwestern-most branch of the aramaean tradition and was thus much
closer to the hittite-Luwian tradition than was Guzana, located in a for-
mer hurrian-akkadian region at the source of the Khabur river. the his-
tory of til Barsib in the central euphrates region and of hamath on the
3 e.g., Frankfort 1954: 164–167; Lebrun 1993; Bunnens 1995a; hutter 1996; novák 2002.
4 particularly akurgal 1949: 135–137; id. 21976: 100–104. For a detailed discussion, see
section 2.1 on samʾal (Zincirli).
5 see also novák 2002: 148.
6 sader 1987: 281–283; aro 2003: 281–285 (including an attempt to define “Luwian art”);
akkermans – schwartz 42006: 367f, who deny any clear difference between Luwian and
aramaean material culture, including art.
7 Lipiński 2000a.
8 contra aro 2003: 281f.