Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati 1998

“The Workshops of Urkesh,”
in Giorgio Buccellati and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati (eds.), Urkesh and the Hurrians, Urkesh/Mozan Studies 3, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 26,
Malibu: Undena Publications, pp. 35-50.

The many sealings from the Palace AP of Urkesh, and mostly from its service wing AK (belonging to king Tupkish, to queen Uqnitum and other courtiers, specifically the nurse Zamena and the cook Tuli [for which see also Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1996a and Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 1996b]) are presented in this paper (chapter 3 in UMS 3; see here the link to the full volume) which analyses their peculiar features and investigates the presence and role of workshops at Urkesh.

The topic is clearly stated at the beginning: “Questions of local production vs. the use of externally manufactures goods are of fundamental importance for the understanding of aspects of the efficient functioning of such a large ancient city as Urkesh” (p. 35). The insights on Urkesh’s workshops starts with 1) the production of stone sculpture, discussing on the round-topped double-sided stele B1.19, found just outside the temple BA structure, on B1.164 and on the two lions of Tish-atal [for the three last objects quoted here, see the link to B1.164 above]. Then the author moves to examine 2) the production of clay sculpture, representing human figurines and animal figurines [cf. mainly Hauser 1998 , Hauser 2007 = UMS 5 and Hauser 2015 ], focusing on the analysis of the human head A1.23 reaching the following conclusion: “Since there are no parallels for this head, it appears more than likely that it was made locally, even though the lack of similar material from the site makes it difficult to prove positively” (p. 41).

The last part of the paper is devoted to the evidence for local workshops based on Urkesh (more than 1200) seal impressions: after an introduction to the materials, the author analyses the seal cutting workshop of the queen, stressing four points: 1) how children are indeed one of the most peculiar iconographic elements; 2) how “formal relationships are expressed in part through size” (p. 44); 3) the theme of working, clearly exemplified in the seals of the queen’s courtiers (as, for instance on sealing A1.364, showing pottery-making [see A1 items for pictures]; 4) the specific placement of the inscription; as for queen’s workshop, the author concludes that “the products of this workshop are distinctive in the area of style as well. The carving is characterized by fully modelled figures with little interior differentiation typical of the carving in the ED III period in the south [… and] a stylistic characteristic […] is the deep carving of the pleats and the fringe of the garments. […] The overriding emphasis on the secular concerns of projecting images of power and the dynastic succession appears to overshadow any reference to divine help or approbation” (pp. 46-47).

The last paragraph before the conclusions analyses the king’s workshop: it resulted that “in both the workshops the concern for the placement of the king and queen in scenes emphasizing their power and prestige is very evident. […] The dynastic program is clearly referred to in k2 [= endan b] where the intimate touching gesture is found along with the exaggerated elbow position. […] Another striking innovation is the motif of the ball of thread held in the hand of one of the king’s attendants (k1 [= endan a])” (p. 48).

In conclusion, “it is difficult to determine how many seal carvers would have been working for the Urkesh dynasts and their courtiers. […] In any discussion of the royal workshops of Urkesh the question of the patron must be raised [for this topic cf. also Kelly-Buccellati 2010]. […]

In other words, the artistic climate within some Urkesh workshops stimulated innovating thinking on the part of both artists and patrons. […] The detail to which the artists went to convey the dynastic message is also impressive and must reflect the very real concerns of the patrons. […] Evidence for this type of creativity and intense collaboration is otherwise rare in the ancient Near East” (pp. 49-50).