GLYPTICS found in the A6 kitchen area of the palace

Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati – August 2024

NOTE: for more detailes about glyptics from this unit, see the related topical book.

Introduction: The sealings as objects

As part of the Service Wing of the palace, the palace kitchen excavated in A6 has a smaller number of seal impressions than the two rooms close to this kitchen, that is the storage rooms A1 and A5.^{Note 1} A6 however had a greater number of seal impressions than other areas of the palace such as the adjacent courtyard A9. This must of course depend on the function of the spaces.^{Note 2}

Interestingly, the very small space, D3, next to the kitchen (D1) had no seal impressions so must have been only used a closet for things needed in the kitchen. Room D2 connects D1 to D3 and to the next section of the building through C7; it was especially important because it also led into the storage area, Area A. D2 also had no seal impressions and must probably was used as a passage way (quote Amer).

As in the other areas of the palace Service Wing the original seals served to seal containers, such as jars, baskets, boxes and sacks. A few from A6 may have been door sealings but the largest number of door sealings from the Service Wing came from the A9 courtyard very near the doorway into Area A.

The opening of the container was first covered with either cloth or leather; this was then tied on with cord; the knot and part of the cord was in turn covered with mud and a cylinder seal was rolled on it. The seal design was originally carved in the negative and this is why we find the impressions in the positive. From the excavations we have the portion of the mud sealing that remained after the opening of the containers. This mud sealing was no longer important and could be discarded. That is why the impressions we find are always broken and so often incomplete.

Iconography

In A6 we have the usual Urkesh themes of animal combat (e.g. A6.51, A6.63) and presentation with a seated figure (A6.112, A6.138), usually a deity, being presented with something (A6q385.3 probably Shamash being presented with something contained in a cup as well as something contained in a pail). In A6c1 portions of the iconography we have does not indicate who the deity is but one of the gods standing before is clearly a grain god.

There were few inscribed seal impressions found in A6 (e.g. A6.178). The most frequent one is the use of the seal of Innin-shadu (A6.105, A6.113, A6.214). His seal shows an animal combat scene therefore it is not iconographically connected with activities in the kitchen. Interestingly the style of the Innin-shadu seal, for example A6.88, called the Dotted eye style, is imitated in many of the seal impressions found in the Urkesh palace.

On a few A6 sealings some scenes are probably rolled with the queen’s seals but do not have the inscription preserved in our excavated sealings from this unit. In the queen’s seals an arm extended toward the queen by her daughter (q4-7) is prominent. In the case of her daughter the girl is actually touching the lap or the hand of the queen shown on the queen’s lap in A6q528.1.

A table with bird shaped legs is shown in q6 and q7. We have frequently found this table represented in the Urkesh palace iconography. In the A6 glyptic corpus it also appears but neither of these two examples can be connected with the queen. Neither has an inscription preserved but more importantly they are connected with different iconographic elements. A6q691.2 appears to be a drinking scene and also has what are interpreted as two pieces of bread on the table. In A6q636.2 we do not have bread on (?) the table and it is not connected with drinking but beneath the table two images, probably a scorpion and a snake, are depicted.

Only one rolling excavated in A6 can be connected with the seal of Tuli the cook, A6q1104c. This seal impression belongs to either h10 or h11. According to the inscriptions on her two seals she was “the cook of the queen.” She was responsible for the running of queen Uqnitum’s kitchen. Her seal iconography includes, in both cases, the events and personnel for whom she was responsible; a male butcher and a female who is churning butter (in one seal; in the other she was stirring, and possibly cooking, something else in a large vat). By connecting her exclusively with the queen, the cuneiform legend proclaims, as it were, the singularity of her position and of the queen’s administrative apparatus as well. From her seal iconography we see two main aspects of her work: food procurement (the butcher) and food preparation (churning and cooking).^{Note 3}

One uninscribed seal impression can also be connected with food preparation. In A6.88, two standing figures are holding long poles inside a tall container; they are flanked by two seated figures, the preserved figure holds a wide bowl on the lap and is working inside this bowl with one hand. This seal emphasizes the fact that different types of food were prepared in the palace, perhaps in the kitchen we excavated in A6.

If we look at scenes not connected with the royal figures at Urkesh and not connected with scenes of working then in the A6 glyptics we note four seal impressions that depict a gate (A6.172), or a gate and the god Shamash (A6.294 and A6.315). A figure with rays coming from the one shoulder preserved in this sealing possibly is the god Shamash but no gate is preserved in this scene (A6q385.3). The seal owners may have chosen these scenes but they do not connect them or their position with a function.

Style

In A6 various types of styles are represented; few show a complex scene and these few include the queen’s seals, Innin-shadu and the cook’s seal impression. Some seal impressions from this excavation unit indicate both a knowledge of seal designs used on sealings found in other parts of the palace as well as elements of style reproduced in seal impressions we see elsewhere in the palace. However this knowledge of style had in many cases only a limited effect achieved by a seal cutter who did not possess the same knowledge or skill found on seal impressions excavated in other parts of the palace. A good example is A6.47.

This is one object with two rollings. If we look at the iconography we see familiar elements such as a seated figure, a bird figure, a table but in this case the bird is below the table not a decoration of its legs, and lastly probably a standing human fighting a rampant hoofed animal. However if we look at the style we see the space of the seal filled with large figure arranged in different directions. The high chair back formed a groundline for the two standing figures at right angles to the seated figure. The extension of the chair back and its linear connection with the figures placed horizontally above the table gives the effect of a frame even if it is not patterned in itself. We see that the figures have no interior modeling or any details such as clothing. These stylistic elements connect the style of this seal with the Schematic style.

Stylistically if we look at the details of how the figures are portrayed, the head and eye of the seated figure shows the head in an oval shape with a hollow area as the eye in the center. This also is the characteristic of many heads in the Schematic style, that is an oval shaped head with the eye placed in the center, e.g. A6.102. In this style the figures can be interconnected in various ways, so for instance in A6.125 the stool of the seated figure is constructed with a pattern of squares filling it but in A6.47 beneath the stool we see a large figure not physically connected to the chair. This seal impression does not have however another characteristic of the Schematic style, that is the disarticulated heads nor a patterned border. In A6q1103.2 we do see large figures separated by vertical linear borders.

Notes

Note 1: For a discussion of sealings and kitchens in palaces see F. Buccellati, “L’architettura palatina.” Archeologia della Siria antica. Dal Periodo Tardo Calcolitico all’Età del Ferro, ca. 3500-332 a.C., D. Nadali, F. Pinnock (Eds) 2021.
Jean-Marie Durand, “L’ORGANISATION DE L’ESPACE DANS LE PALAIS DE MARI : LE TÉMOIGNAGE DES TEXTES;” in E. Lévy (éd.), LE SYSTÈME PALATIAL EN ORIENT, EN GRÈCE ET À ROME. 1987. _{Back to text}
Note 2: Federico Buccellati, Three dimensional Volumetric Analysis in an Archaeological Context. The Palace of Tupkish at Urkesh and its Representation. Urkesh/Mozan Studies 6 = Bibliotheca Mesopotamiaca 30 (2016), p.65. _{Back to text}
Note 3: M. Kelly-Buccellati, “Celebrating Life in Mesopotamia,” Backdirt 2018, pp. 58-64; “Women’s Power and Work in Ancient Urkesh,” S.L. Budin and J.M. Turfa (Eds), Women in Antiquity (2016), pp. 48-63. _{Back to text}