“Andirons at Urkesh: New Evidence for the Hurrian Identity of Early Trans-Caucasian Culture,”
in A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, ANES Supplement 12, Herent: Peeters, pp. 67-89.
On of the most peculiar artefacts found at Urkesh are indeed the andirons (also called in literature ‘firedogs’, i.e. bracket supports on which different combustible material are laid for burning): the importance of these finds is also the possibility to strengthen the relationship between Urkesh and the Early Trans-Caucasian culture (ETC), extending in modern Georgia and Armenia.
During the last phase of this period (i.e. ETC III), urban sites started developing in Eastern Anatolia (e.g. Malatya, Tepecik and Norşuntepe), allowing easier contacts with Northern-Syria.
After having displayed results of recent excavation at Tell Mozan (mostly focusing on sealings and cuneiform tablets), the author moves to describe the andirons: “In Khabur period private houses we have uncovered decorated andirons and hearths of a type typical for the Early Trans-Caucasian culture. These objects suggest just the kind of link in material culture that we are seeking [i.e., with the ETC]” (p. 69).
The following paragraphs describe in detail the shapes and decorations of ETC andirons, presenting comparison with andirons and hearths from Urkesh, found in private houses in Areas F1 (late Akkadian period), C2 (‘Pushsham house’, Ur III period) and in public buildings such as the Royal Palace AP (in area AA).
The possible ancient trade routes are reconstructed, also speculating about the system of control of these important zones (mostly the Mardin pass, just to the North of Tell Mozan): to strengthen the idea of contacts between Urkesh, Early Anatolia and ETC, sealings and seals decorations and motifs are compared, underlining communal way of carvings and of portraying images.
In conclusion, about the andirons; “1) they are the only type of object from this culture [i.e. ETC] decorated with anthropomorphic or theriomorphic designs; 2) they are found I prominent locations in houses and in other types of structures; 3) what are interpreted as cultic strategies are not identified by distinctive architectural plans but do give evidence from their inventory of a ritual or cultic function; 4) many of the ceramic designs have been interpreted as male or female representations […] which assigns to them a more specific character even if we cannot identify these figures; 5) the presence of what appear to be horns on the Urkesh examples may indicate that deities are represented on some andirons” (pp. 76-77).
Furthermore, the possibility that andirons were involved in ritual activities is deeply investigated.
In the end: “The evidence of the Urkesh andirons allows us to continue to link a Hurrian city with the north and thereby shed some light on the complex cultural interactions which led eventually to the very lively Hurrian influence on Hittite culture”.
[As for the ‘ethnical’ interpretation of the andirons, see Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 2007 and Buccellati 2010, paragraph 4; for the conservation of andirons, see Bonetti and G. Buccellati 2003].
Back to top: Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati 2004