chapter sevenartDominik Bonatz1. introduction
1.1 Aramaean Art: Problems of Definitiona discussion of the art created by the aramaeans in syria must begin
with the sober observation that it is impossible to define “aramaean art”.
attempts to undertake an ethnic classification of the artworks of past soci-
eties have generally proved problematic, since they misjudge the dynamic
of ethnicity, “the paradoxical sense that ethnicity is something reinvented
and reinterpreted in each generation by each individual and that it is often
something quite puzzling to the individual, something over which he or
she lacks control.”1 the history of the aramaeans, in particular, is based
on a series of reinventions and reinterpretations, which must be evaluated
against the backdrop of very different regional traditions. the conditions
under which the aramaeans established their urban settlements were
extremely diverse due to the large areas that they inhabited. the leeway
for constructing individual identity was correspondingly large. Further-
more, since in contrast to assyria and ashur—the capital that gave this
civilization its name—aramaean culture had no ideological center, it is
difficult to make out the factors that would have led to the emergence
of a national or collective aramaean consciousness. against this social
backdrop, arguments for the existence of a distinctly aramaean element
in visual art based on style or iconography must be dismissed.
By contrast, a specific form of assyrian art existed in the neo-assyrian
empire in the 1st millennium B.c., since in this case the centralist organi-
zational forms of the political and administrative systems also provided
for clear conventions in visual art.2 although these conventions did not
yet make assyrian sculptural works an expression of ethnic identity, these
1 schiffer 1986: 195.
2 Winter 1997.