250 dominik bonatz
a major problem in pinpointing the location of these workshops and
reconstructing regional styles in north syrian bronze production is that
so few of the objects have been excavated in the area. For this reason
it is extremely difficult for current researchers to identify the centers of
aramaean bronzeworking.221
the aramaic name inscriptions on a number of the bronze bowls from
the northwest palace in nimrud confirmed r. D. Barnett in his view that
it was possible to speak, for the first time, “of a group of products which
might be termed an aramaean school of art.”222 the bowls are decorated
with an incised central star pattern around which tiny stags or sphinxes
are arranged. I. J. Winter later linked this distinctive group from the hoard
in nimrud to the style she defined for south syrian ivories, affirming that,
as in the case of the ivories, the bronze bowls could be broken down into a
south syrian or “intermediate” group, a north syrian group, and a phoeni-
cian group.223 at any rate, it seems theoretically possible to use the stylis-
tic affinities to ivory styles such as “flame and frond” and “roundcheeked
and ringletted” as a basis for determining the provenances of the metal
objects. however, in the case of the bowls found in graves and temples on
crete and in Greece, it is difficult to make specific classifications because
these pieces exhibit not only syrian, but also phoenician and egyptian
characteristics.224
as regards the bronze sheets with relief decorations that were found
in Olympia, U. seidl has proposed—based on parallels to north syrian
art—that these sheets were created in three different workshops. she
argues that one of the workshops was located in samʾal based on the
resemblances between the reliefs on two standing figures (sphyrelata)
from Olympia and representations not only on the carved orthostats from
hilani III and hilani Iv in Zincirli, but also at the entrance to the palace in
sakçagözü.225 her comparisons focus on the “empty” background behind
the figures, the clothing and hairstyle of the striding men, as well as the
stylistic treatment of plants and animal bodies.
221 even in the case of a possible Luwian center, the categorization remains hypotheti-
cal due to the lack of site finds. this is also true of carchemish, which was suggested by
Winter (Winter 1983: 184–186).
222 Barnett 1967: 4 pl. Iv.
223 Winter 1981: 103, 108, 115.
224 e.g., Braun-holzinger – rehm 2005: 104f.
225 seidl 1999: 273f, 278f figs. 1–2. she argues that a second workshop was located in
carchemish (seidl 1999: 279–260). For a complete publication of the sheets with reliefs
from Olympia, see Borell – rittig 1998.