art 209
the development of this monumental style doubtless had its origins
in Luwian cities such as carchemish and Malatya, which formed a direct
link to hittite traditions of the Late Bronze age. It continued to unfold
in the aramaean settlements that emerged in the late 11th and 10th cen-
turies B.c.12 the carved orthostats were initially mounted on the bases
of the city gate walls, where they symbolically marked the hierarchical
transition between exterior and interior areas of the city.13 In addition to
functioning as bearers of images and inscriptions, they played a practical
role in protecting the surfaces of the walls from the effects of the weather.
Beginning in the 10th century B.c., the façades of central buildings and
the edifices on squares and alleys were increasingly decorated with sculp-
tured narratives. these representations, which were continually charged
with meaning at public ceremonies and during public processions, seem
to have been aimed at creating a consensus between the ruling élite and
the rest of the urban population.14 Only later was the emphasis placed
on erecting sculptured orthostats in the exclusive areas of the palaces, on
their main porches, and on the façades that were shielded by the walls
of the citadel complex. the visual message of such monuments centered
on the aristocratic élite and their court ceremonies.15
the aramaeans’ method of designing public space with monumental
sculptures was not distinct from hittite-Luwian practices. rather, it has
become clear that, when cities were planned, decisions were made on
the basis of local geographical conditions, the availability of resources,
and geopolitical relations.16 the aramaean cities of samʾal and Guzana
are two striking examples. Based on their layout alone—the one circu-
lar, the other rectangular—they are marked by considerable differences.17
When it came to selecting visual themes and motifs, these cities, like
many aramaean settlements, initially continued local traditions but then
12 Mazzoni 1994.
13 Mazzoni 1997.
14 Gilibert 2011.
15 Gilibert 2011.
16 Mazzoni 1994: 326f.
17 For a comprehensive discussion of the urban design and architecture of both cit-
ies, see pucci 2008: 15–126 and M. novák’s contribution in this volume. according to
s. Mazzoni, “the choice of the circular plan [was] a clear reference to the local earlier
traditions, and largely an effect of natural topographic growth. the choice of the quadran-
gular plan emphasized, on the contrary, the new city was a planned, functional structure
providing an image of great ideological appeal, no less than that propagandized by the
neo-assyrian cities” (Mazzoni 1994: 330).