Marie-Thérèse Barrelet 1978

“Le ‘cas hurrite’ et l’archéologie,”
Revue Hittite et Asianique 36, pp. 23-24.

The basic topic of the present paper deals with the identification of Hurrian ethnicity, firstly addressing a methodological question on how archaeologists perceive the ‘Hurrian problem’ (or, maybe better, the ‘enquiry about Hurrians’). The contribution is divided into two sections: 1) the first one is about theory, on how archaeologists can connect some data to Hurrians (the realia topic); 2) the second part tries to define the concept of ‘Hurrian ethnicity’ by analysing practical issues.

Section 1 (pp. 23-26) further investigate the theoretical background behind the definition of a ‘Hurrian ethnicity’: A. Moortgat’s view on them as ‘people of mountains’ is recalled, and defines how we can state a objects as Hurrian; the discussion moves to the building up of six main mechanism of identification (positive or negative): A) Hurrians have been frequently recognized only through textual evidence; B) the equation ‘Hurrian = Mittanian’ has been taken for sure from the very first discoveries (again, mostly focusing on texts); C) archaeological and chronological overlapping must be taken into account; D) the heterogeneity of the assemblages cannot by itself proof an ethnical diversity (i.e., it is not so mandatory that a ‘Hurrian object’ should belong to a ‘Hurrian owner’); E) the ‘schéma de réduction’ (quoting B. Landsberg), implying a generalisation of a particular phaenomenon to a whole reality, is to be avoided; F) the authorities’ opinion (the ipse dixit) must be proved by the evidence, and not assumed as true a priori.

Section 2 (pp. 26-34) is divided into two sections, involving some sub-paragraphs: paragraph 2 asks how to define a object as Hurrian under a mere archaeological perspective: sub-paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 address this question focusing on material of different proveniences and on objects surely coming from Nuzi, respectively. Sub-paragraph 2.1.1 considers 6 peculiar and intrinsically defined characteristics of an object (material, shape, function, iconography, manufacture and texts), asking if they can be recognized as ‘specifically Hurrian’, or not. Sub-paragraph 2.1.2 investigates Mittanian, Nuzi and Alalakh IV glyptic, trying to extrapolate some common, shared features. Sub-paragraph 2.2.1 applies the same mechanisms of previous section 2.1.2 to some fragments of wall paintings coming from Mittanian areas. Sub-paragraph 2.2.2 resembles in methodology with 2.1.2 but focusing on technical factors in manufacturing clay objects. 2.2.3 deeply focuses on Nuzi, cylindrical glyptic (studied and published mostly by E. Porada and by B. Buchanan), reconsidering both archaeological and iconographical data to define a ‘Hurrian glyptic style’.