224 dominik bonatz
additional lions or fragments of lion sculptures attributable to this sty-
listic group were found in the secondary context in the area in front of
building II.82 compared to the older lions, all of these pieces show a clear
tendency toward an fully sculptured execution of the body and a natural
design of the mane and whiskers—a development also observable, for
example, in the lions in Zincirli (see section 2.1.2).
the buildings at which the lion orthostats once stood all belong to
period e at hamath. this is why even e. Fugmann assumed that the two
stylistically older lions from building II were originally associated with a
building from period F.83 period e at the citadel of hamath dates approxi-
mately to the 9th and 8th century B.c. the last kings of the long-established
Luwian-anatolian dynasty of hamath, Urḫilina, and Uratami ruled in the
early part of this period, before the aramaeans assumed power under King
Zakkur in the late 8th century B.c.84 there were no radical architectural
changes or acts of destruction at the citadel as a result of this change of
rule. the arrival of Zakkur in hamath seems only to be linked to the res-
toration of existing buildings.85 consequently, the lion orthostats, which
unfortunately do not include any inscriptions that would allow absolute
time classifications, cannot be assigned to a particular reign. Most prob-
ably, though, they were part of the earliest building plan, which was based
on models from the preceding period F in the 10th and 11th centuries.
Under the aramaeans, the lion sculptures remained in the same publicly
accessible space in the architectural ensemble of the citadel. there was no
reason to remove them as a sign of the aramaeansʼ assumption of power.
this was consistent with developments in other places with a growing
aramaean presence: once the aramaeans arrived, visual art did not take
on any fundamentally new form, but adapted to the structures of existing
traditions.
hamath is the southernmost of the aramaean cities where a significant
number of monumental artworks have been excavated. Due to the lack
of such works in aramaean centers farther to the south, particularly in
Damascus, it is impossible to assess the development of art there. the
only indication that there were similar forms of monumental art in these
82 Orthmann 1971: 102f; hama c 1–3 (“Late hittite” II); Fugman 1958: 191–208 figs. 245,
256, 261.
83 Fugman 1958: 145.
84 Despite the rulers’ Luwian and hurrian names, Lipiński 2000a: 252f argues that it
was an anatolian dynasty.
85 sader 1987: 228.