222 dominik bonatz
that all the monumental inscriptions and sculptural works dating from
the time prior to the assyrian conquest of til Barsib in 856 B.c. would
have to be attributed to an aramaean dynasty, although the script used
is hieroglyphic Luwian and the style and iconography of the sculptural
works is clearly based on the neo-hittite visual art found in carchemisch.73
It thus appears that the writing and visual media of the new rulers in til
Barsib essentially emerged under the influence of the culture of carche-
mish. In this context there is nothing to indicate a conscious demarcation
in relation to the hittite-Luwian heritage.
the fragments of orthostats from til Barsib featuring representations of
warriors were not found in situ.74 after the assyrian assumption of power
under shalmaneser III, they were probably moved to the new palace and
could still be seen there in the period of assyrian hegemony.75 the assy-
rians henceforth erected their own sculptural works in the city, which they
renamed Kār-Šalmaneser. the most impressive works from this period
include the monumental lion sculptures erected by the turtānu Šamši-ilu in
the first half of the 8th century at the eastern gate of tell aḥmar. It is
interesting to note that these sculptures are not in the style of the portal
lions found in assyrian palaces, such as those erected by ninurta-bēl-uṣur,
the eunuch (ša rēši) of Šamši-ilu, at one of the gates of arslan tash. rather,
they are in the tradition of syro-hittite lion sculptures and are linked with
local traditions predating the assyrian assumption of power.76
how can such phenomena be interpreted against a background of
intercultural relations and changing forms of rule? as governors, Šamši-ilu
and ninurta-bēl-uṣur represented the assyrian power in the subjugated
aramaean cities. But in the regions they administered they also acted as
local potentates, which is expressed in their often complex relationship.77
the purely assyrian inscription that is clearly visible on the front side
of the lions in til Barsib/Kār-Šalmaneser represents the means by which
Šamši-ilu expressed the political power and presence of assyria. On the
other hand, the syro-hittite or neo-hittite style of the sculptures must
surely be interpreted as expressing a consensus with the still viable ara-
maean élite, who had adapted this style over generations. By contrast,
73 Orthmann 1971: 48.
74 Orthmann 1971: til Barsib a/2–3, 5–6.
75 Bunnens 1994: 24f.
76 Bunnens 2009: 79f figs. 7a (lion from arslan tash), 8a (lion from til Barsib), with
comparisons to portal lions from nimrud (fig. 7b) and havuzköy (fig. 8b).
77 Bunnens 2009: 79.