JP – The Temple Plaza and Terrace Edge (Version 1a)

JP introduction

The Temple Terrace and the Plaza

A narrative presentation

Giorgio Buccellati, Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati – May 2006

Framing the question
Development and structural components {# TO=”“} As a result of the work
Stratigraphy
The Terrace: revetment wall, packing and glacis
The monumental staircase
The Plaza
Schematic reconstructions {# TO=”“}Terrace and Temple (Drawing P.
Schematic sections {# TO=”“}Schematic section through western part of

Framing the question
Development and structural components
Stratigraphy
The Terrace: revetment wall, packing and glacis
The monumental staircase in J2

Framing the question

     Excavations of Temple BA began on the very first day of our first season, in 1984, and continued until 1987. Being very near the surface, it was surprising to find that the earliest phase, and the only one that could still be fully exposed, dated to late ED III. This has remained to-date the largest exposure of any struc-ture at Tell Mozan belonging to this phase, which (termed Phase 1) has been ap-plied also to the pre-palace remains.
     Given the early date for the Temple, and its high elevation (9700 ); given the otherwise substantial presence of second millennium material in the rest of the High Mound; and given finally the extreme paucity of ceramic material in the flat area to the south of the Temple (to which we had assigned the label J) - we had anticipated that the Temple had originally been built on a central artificial rise, which came successively to be ringed by other, later, rises, and that the sterile zone J to the south represented some kind of open area.
     In order to continue with the exploration of other parts of the mound, it was decided not to continue excavations in the area of the Temple, and in 1990 we opened a new excavation area (AA) in the mid-western part of the Tell. Its original purpose was to develop a stepped trench that would link a flat open area at the base of the tell with what appeared to be the latest phase of occupation at the top. In the process, we uncovered the royal Palace of Tupkish, which was subsequently found to expand eastward in the direction of the Plaza. It thus appeared that we had a single monumental urban complex that included the Palace with the sacral area of the ?bi to the west and the Temple with its Terrace to the east, joined in the middle by the Plaza J. Hence the decision to devote the 2005 (and 2006) seasons entirely to the goal of linking together as much as possible the various components of this urban complex, and in particular to clarify the nature and extent of the Temple Terrace.
     Our anticipation about an artificial rise supporting the Temple found its first confirmation when we planned for excavations in area C2, which were to begin in 1999 as joint field work with Peter Pfälzner and Heike Dohmann-Pfälzner and their team from the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft and the University of Tübingen. In order to establish a stratigraphic link with the area of the Temple, it was decided that C2 would be linked through a long trench (B6) with the excavations of Temple BA, and in so doing, it was found that the rise on which the Temple stood was ringed by a stone wall and that a monumental staircase gave access to the Terrace and the Temple. The perimeter of the wall was further investigated by means of a geophysical survey, organized by the Pfälzners, which revealed the presence of a continuous line in the form an oval. The geo-physical investigation also confirmed our initial supposition (based on the extreme paucity of ceramic material) that zone J in front of the Terrace was an open area, devoid of structures.

Development and structural components {# TO=”“}
As a result of the work

conducted in the 2005 season we now have a good understanding not only of the stratigraphic history (discussed in section ?2?2), but also of the structural composition of the Terrace (discussed in sections ?3?3-?5?5). By way of introduction, we will highlight here the major conclusions of our analysis.
     The Terrace consists of five major components (see Fig. 1). (1) At its base, a fairly steep escarpment bridged a difference in elevation of about 2 meters be-tween the level of the Plaza and the base of a stone wall that ringed the Terrace. (2) An inner core (not excavated, but only inferred) represents the earlier Terrace, accessed by a similarly earlier version of the monumental staircase. (3) A packing was placed on top of the inner core to raise the top level of the Terrace. This formed a glacis the top surface of which was covered with a water resistant coat-ing and (at least in part) with mudbrick. Concentric rings of small boulders were located along the surface of the glacis. (4) A revetment wall lined the outer face of the Terrace. In a minor way it served the function of a retaining wall, but only for the limited amount of packing contained between the inner core and the re-vetment wall itself. (5) A monumental access to the south consisted of a central staircase flanked by two trapezoidal aprons that widened towards the bottom.
     The Temple and its Terrace existed in their present form by at least 2400 to 2350 B.C. The escarpment and the revetment wall remained unobstructed for a number of centuries. The situation began to change in the Khabur period, proba-bly around 1800 B.C. It is at that time that we assume the Plaza began to be blocked on its southern side by new constructions that impeded the water flow coming from the Temple Terrace. As a result, a semi-natural sedimentation began to cover the floor of the Plaza - semi-natural because while the process was due primarily to natural forces, the inclusions contained ceramic and other material. The Khabur period sedimentation would have covered the Plaza to a level slightly below the top of the escarpment and away from the face of the wall (a level not reached as yet in the excavations), at which point the Mittani layers be-gin, which continue unabated for an additional 3 meters, to where they reach the top of the wall.
     We have good reasons to believe that the revetment wall as originally con-structed remained in use, without damage or encroachment, for some 900 years, until about 1500 B.C.. At that point in time, the wall continued in use, and still without damage, but the growing natural sedimentation above the Plaza began to cover its face, until it completely hid it from view by the time the site was aban-doned, about 1350 B.C. At the end of this process, when both the revetment wall and the staircase had been largely so covered, a new and larger frame was built (or restructured) for the top part of the staircase. Thus we date to the latest phase, about 1400 B.C., the widening of the apron and the slight reorganization of the staircase itself.
     There must already have been a considerable rise that predated the Terrace as we have it now, in function of an earlier version of Terrace and Temple. The only direct evidence for this is the presence, at the base of the exposed staircase, of stone steps that underlie the staircase itself. A second argument, strongly (if indi-rectly) pointing in the same direction, is the fact that the base of the Terrace as preserved is at elevation 8700, about 12 meters above the ancient level of the plain, which, it can be argued, did not rest in turn on an original natural hill, but only on an artificial rise. We can exclude a natural rise because of the presence of cultural materials at the level virgin soil only some 150 meters to the north of the temple. It seems therefore inescapable that this artificial rise, with its stone steps in the same location as the later staircase, would have been in function of a Tem-ple of which the one we have excavated would be the direct heir. While this ear-lier Temple may date to early ED III, it seems only plausible that earlier versions yet would have been present, dating possibly back all the way to the beginning of the third millennium if not earlier.
     There are good circumstantial reasons to believe that the Temple with its Terrace was built in its present form around 2400 B.C. but with antecedents most likely going back several centuries. Evidence further indicates that the Temple was dedicated to Kumarbi (see below, ?7.1?7.1), the main ancestral god of the Hur-rian pantheon. If so, we come here in touch with one of the most archaic and most pristine monuments of Hurrian religion and ethnicity.
     This is all the more remarkable if one considers that the great underground structure, identified as a Hurrian ?bi, exhibits a parallel history. The earliest levels we have excavated so far date to Phase 1, i.e. to late ED III, but we have not reached the bottom of the structure. One must note that the current elevation of the lowest point in the ?bi is about 6 m. above virgin soil, and that the later levels point to a remarkable stratigraphic and functional continuity. Thus it seems more than likely that the ?bi, too, should give evidence of a much earlier tradition, pos-sibly going back to the beginning of the settlement at the start of the third millen-nium. The profoundly Hurrian nature of the structure would then be matched by that of the high Terrace and Temple, and together they present us with a monumental complex that is as impressive ideologically as it is architecturally.

Stratigraphy

Strategy {# TO=”“} The major stratigraphic aims were

to (1) open two windows along the south-ern face of the perimetral wall, intending to reach elevation 8500 (the surface be-ing in this area at an elevation of around 9200); (2) open a sounding on the inside of the wall to ascertain the nature of the Terrace core; (3) follow the staircase to determine what might lie at its base; (4) establish a clear chronological sequence from the accumulations against the perimetral wall.
     The lowermost elevation of 8500 was suggested as a target by the fact that this is the elevation of the large paved stone courtyard in the Tupkish Palace (in excavation area A16), and is also the elevation of the brickfall that we assume to be that of the eastern perimetral wall of the same Palace (in A19, see Fig. 2). It seems plausible that the level of the plaza JP, adjacent to the Palace, should be at this approximate elevation. Consequently, we hypothesized that the perimetral wall of the Temple Terrace, bounding the plaza on the east as the palace does to the west, should also be founded at approximately the same elevation.
     Accordingly, we worked in three excavation units (Fig. 3; Ill. 1). In J1 we meant to reach the bottom of the wall and to explore the nature of its articulation: could one find evidence of a buttress or a tower? does the wall define an oval or a polygon? is there an additional staircase to the west?
     In J2 we planned to expose the southwestern end of the stairway complex and reach its foundation, assuming that this, too, might be at elevation 8500 and we expected thereby to reach the base of the staircase.
     In J3 we wanted to clear a small portion of the inside face of the wall, in or-der to gain insight into the construction techniques of both the wall and the ter-racing. We further planned for an additional sounding at some distance to the south of the face of the wall, with the aim of verifying the nature of what we as-sumed to be the inert sedimentation lying above the Plaza.
     In addition, we also intended to experiment with a new kind of step-and-slope section proposed by architect Gionata Rizzi. While common in non-archaeological engineering work, this type of section has not been used, to our knowledge, in archaeological field work in our general region. The two main rea-sons for such a change in the time-honored tradition of straight archaeological sections were security for the visitors, and protection against erosion.

Evidence for the period before 2400 B.C.

     The general elevation of the Temple Terrace is high: the Temple floor (dat-ing to about 2400 B.C.) is at 9700, i.e., some 22 meters above virgin soil which is at about 7500. Such a high elevation for such an early date had suggested to us when we first excavated the Temple that it stood above layers that were consid-erably earlier in date or that it stood on a massive artificial fill. We can exclude a natural hill situated under the Temple since a sounding nearby that reached virgin soil indicated an elevation for virgin soil that was constant with the surrounding plain. As a result of the recent excavations, we can now point, for the first time, to positive stratigraphic evidence in support of the same conclusion. This evi-dence comes from two locations.
     (1) At the base of the staircase in J2 there are steps and pavements that un-derlie the major staircase, thus indicating the presence of an earlier structure with similar features. And (2) in the accumulations that underlie the top surface of the Terrace, and are faced by the revetment wall, there is ceramic material that can be dated to the Late Chalcolithic period (see below, ?6.3?6.3). Given the way in which we can assume the terracing was built (?3.4?3.4), it is clear that this material was brought in from an original context at another location, presumably a Late Chal-colithic settlement in the area of what later became the lower city.
     Construction of wall and staircase about 2400 B.C.
     The date for the construction of both the wall and the staircase is made cer-tain by the nature of the accumulations that abut their base in J1 and J2. Typo-logically, the ceramics from the layers that abut the lowest 50 cms or so of the wall belong to Phase 1 or earlier (see above, ?2.2?2.2, for the phase sequence, and below, ?6.2?6.2, for the typology).
     The key stratigraphic consideration is that these accumulations clearly abut the base of the wall, and therefore conclusively date the moment of construction. The situation is clearly visible in Ill. 4 for J1, and Ill. 3 for J2.
     The general situation is shown in Ill. 3. Here the accumulations are dated ty-pologically to Phase 1 or earlier: they abut not only the revetment wall, but also the side wall of the monumental staircase. As a result, it is also beyond doubt that the lower part of the staircase (the one that is flanked by the side wall) dates to Phase 1 or earlier as well.
     This conclusion rests on the further inference that the revetment wall, the side wall and the lower staircase, all exhibit a structural coherence that justifies considering them as having been set in place at one single time, without succes-sive patching or rebuilding of the lower portion of the structure.
     There are two caveats that may be raised against this interpretation. First, given the limited exposure for these early strata in J1 and J2, one might suggest that the accumulations containing these early materials were the result not of a primary and organic deposition on top of the escarpment, but rather of a secon-dary moment when earlier material were brought over to serve as a fill in the building of the Terrace. Our conclusion to the contrary derives in part from the homogeneity of the early material (not mixed with any later material) and the regularity of the layered emplacement, as well as from the two overriding consid-erations that (a) the level of the Plaza seems certain to be that of the main floors of the formal wing of the Palace, thus making it highly unlikely that it could be dated to almost 1000 years after the Palace, and (b) the Temple as preserved at the top of the glacis clearly belongs to Phase 1.
     The second caveat arises from the question as to why an early layer would have been preserved on the sloping surface of the escarpment, but not the layers from the immediately successive periods. In other words, if the occupation of Phases 2 through 5 kept the escarpment slope clean, why is it that the occupation of Phase 1 did not? For this we do not have a satisfactory answer, which might be forthcoming from a larger exposure resulting from future excavations. But what-ever this answer might be, it would not seem to affect the question of the dating of the wall construction.

Structural integrity of revetment wall and glacis through 1400

B.C. {# TO=”“}
Excavations in J3 led to a significant conclusion regarding the date of the packing, and hence of the top of the wall as preserved. We were in fact able to determine that the top of the wall as we have it today is in all likelihood the same as originally constructed in the third millennium. Our conclusion is based on the fact that we have, in J3, the top of the original Terrace, with pottery dated to Phase 1 or earlier contained inside a 30 to 50 cms layer of baqaya that coats and seals the top of the Terrace. The baqaya coating of the glacis is such a major en-gineering work, and is so clearly integrated with the inside coating of the revet-ment wall, that it stands to reason to assume that it is the original top of the Ter-race. And since it joins neatly with the top of the revetment wall, it is also logical to assume that the top of the wall as we have it dates to the same period.
This is a significant conclusion, because it implies that (a) the state of pres-ervation is well nigh perfect, and that (b) the revetment wall stood the test of time for some 900 years both structurally and in terms of not being damaged or altered by any later intervention.

The gap between 2400 B.C. and 1500

B.C. {# TO=”“} The immediate superposition of mid second above mid third millennium ma-terial is puzzling at first - especially since we have deposits of that period some 7 m thick to the west, in the area of the Palace. Why is it that we have in front of the Temple Terrace no evidence of material contemporary with the Palace, which dates to a period of great importance for Urkesh?
The answer can be gauged from the stratigraphic situation as summarized in Figs. 4 and 5. When first built, the Temple Terrace wall rose to a height of 3 m above a high glacis which was probably 2 m above the plaza. From the level of the plaza at the base of the glacis (elevation 8500) up to the floor of the Temple (elevation 9700) there was a difference in elevation of some 12 meters. The plaza was open to the south, so that there was room for the run off water to flow down to the surrounding plain. In the second millennium, however, the plaza began to be blocked to the south by new constructions, and sedimentation began to occur above the plaza. The lower levels were at the base of the glacis, and only as the sedimentation grew did it reach as far as the base of the wall - where we have found it laying directly upon the earlier floors. We expect that future excavations will follow the slope of the escarpment down to the surface of the plaza and un-cover Khabur period strata.

The re-organization of the space around 1500

B.C. {# TO=”“}     The stone staircase in J2, with its monumental frame that we had exposed last year, continued in use during the second millennium, and in particular in Mit-tani times (see section ?4.2?4.2). There is a possibility that the top half, with its wider secondary apron, may have been built, or at least rebuilt, at that point in time.
     There are two main reasons for this tentative suggestion. The first is that in J3, where we have exposed the extreme western end of the apron (see Ill. 5), we could determine that the pottery found in the layers immediately under this por-tion of the apron is also from the Mittani period. This does therefore provide a terminus post quem for at least this portion of the apron. But it is, of course, pos-sible that the apron may have been repaired in later times, in which case the evi-dence from the pottery underlying its extreme western end would be inconclu-sive.
     A second reason to assume that a major reorganization of the monumental staircase may have taken place in the second millennium is also tentative - namely that there are clear discontinuities between the lower and the upper part of the staircase (see Ill. 2). In the staircase itself, the stone of the lower steps is more accurately hewn and the height of the steps is more regular than in the up-per part. In the upper part, the reverse is true, and the apron, too, shows irregu-larities that may not occur in the lower part. At this same point, i. e., half way up the main apron, where the discontinuity is more apparent, we have a large stone placed so that it may have served as an offering table or a type of ritual platform. As noted below (section ?3.5?3.5), the use areas seem to have been shrinking pro-gressively with the passing of time, and the major reduction seems to have coin-cided with the major discontinuity just noted, which we consider the main transi-tional moment between phase 6a and 6b.
     Another aspect that may have coincided with this transition in the phases is the progressive disappearance of the revetment wall in its western portion. The top of the third millennium wall was lower in J1 and J3, and it may be that in J2 the higher portions are linked with the restructuring that occurred within phase 6.

The second millennium inert sedimentation above the

plaza {# TO=”“}     As already shown by our earlier excavations, the area in front of the Terrace wall consists exclusively of a very regular layering resulting from natural sedi-mentation - the only exception being the use areas immediately adjacent to the monumental access area in J2 (see below, section ?5.2?5.2). This is clearly evi-denced by the long sequence of strata in all three units that are evenly horizontal in their alignment, without any intrusions (such as pits or tannurs), and which consist of a uniform grey matrix, with small pebbles and sherds as inclusions. These strata abut the great Terrace Wall, and show that the wall continued, throughout Mittani times, to be exposed, and respected (since there is no evi-dence of any stones having been removed).
     At a depth of about 2 m in squares J1k7 and J3k103, the sedimentation on top of the open area of the Plaza becomes so hard that even the big pick rebounds as if used against a stone. As a test, we have used a jackhammer for one day. This did indeed help, in that it served to break down the hard layer that was almost impervious. We monitored closely the use of this tool, new for us, and we felt that in the right situation and under proper supervision it may indeed be useful.
     As already noted in our 2004 excavations in J1 and J2, there are large boul-ders that are found just above and near the top of the face of the great Terrace Wall. By all indications, these boulders do not come from the wall itself, since the top line of stones in the wall is preserved to a uniform height. We assume that they came instead from two (or more?) concentric stone loops that ringed the Ter-race at two (or more?) distinct levels on the upward slope towards the Temple (see Fig. 1). These stones would easily have slid down along the relatively steep slope, and they would have stopped in some cases at the top of the wall, while in other cases they would have rolled over the top portion of the wall as it was still showing. Illustration 4 shows a good view of this situation.
     The tumbled boulders are found only in the uppermost Mittani strata, i.e., in phase 6b. This is indicative of a moment when the Terrace begins to lose its iden-tity as a high profile structure, clearly marked by a high terrace rising above the rest of the site. It had become, instead, a gentle rise barely marked by stone loops that were losing their full significance. As the stones began to slide down the slope, nothing was done to prevent that from happening, and yet the space was still sufficiently privileged to prevent the rolled stones from being removed and used for other purposes. In the earlier phase 6a, on the other hand, the Terrace had retained its marked identity since the top of the wall was still showing to a height of a couple of meters, and thus the Terrace slope itself retained its identity, and the stone loops were maintained - so that as a result we do not have tumbled stones in the lower strata of phase 6a. This situation is illustrated in the sketch given as Fig. 1).

Scattered occupation after the end of Urkesh as sacral

center {# TO=”“} In the topmost layers of J3 we have found a tannur, and three more tannurs had been found last year in the same topmost layers in J2. We consider them now evidence of what we have been calling scattered occupation, i.e., a sparsely in-habited settlement, at a time when the sacral use of the great Temple has ended, so that non-sacral uses (such as occasional baking of bread) may occur at the very center of what had been the very sacred, and hence inviolable, Temple Terrace. In J3, it is clear that the tannur overlays the strata where the wall is still visible and untouched (hence functionally operative), even if greatly reduced in height.
We have accordingly introduced a new phase, 7, that reflects precisely this final moment in the occupational history of Urkesh. We consider it to correspond to the period when the identity of the site as a specifically Hurrian religious cen-ter had waned, so that this scattered occupation would reflect the transition to As-syrian times.

The Terrace: revetment wall, packing and glacis

The base of the Terrace revetment wall and its structural

features {# TO=”“}     The base of the Temple Terrace wall is clearly visible in J1. Though exposed only to a width of some 2 m., there is no reason to believe that the situation would be any different at other locations.
     It is at elevation 8700, i.e., about 2 m higher than the expected 8500 - but the escarpment in front of the wall (see presently) would have bridged the difference in elevation.
     Several structural elements must be noted. First, there are no foundations to the wall. As shown clearly by the excavations in J1, there is no trace of a founda-tion trench in the sections, and the escarpment abuts the very base of the wall, its top being only about 20 cms above the bottom of the lowermost stones.
     Second, the wall is of limited width, a little over one meter, about the width of two large stones placed side by side. The stones are irregular in shape, and are set in a plain mud mortar.
     Third, the face of the wall shows no discernible batter, nor is there any evi-dence for buttresses, pilasters or towers (though of course the possibility remains that such may be found when further excavations will expose larger portions of the wall). The face of the wall itself is coarse, meaning that there is no alignment of flat faces of the stones and that the joints are quite uneven.
     Finally, the wall is of limited height, about 3 meters or slightly more as one approaches the great staircase.
     It cannot therefore be considered a retaining wall, since, given the structural characteristics just mentioned, it would not easily withstand the internal outward pressure coming from the Terrace core. We may consider it instead a revetment wall built along the Terrace packing, as a protection against erosion and also for aesthetic reasons. The revetment wall would have been built at the same time that the packing was put in place (see below, ?3.4?3.4).

The escarpment at the base of the wall {# TO=”“}4 In

J1 we have a clear surface that marks the top of an escarpment sloping down from the base of the revetment wall towards the south. In J2 we did not reach the top surface of the escarpment, but the alignment of the accumulations at a slightly higher elevation suggests a similar slope in what we presume to have been the same escarpment, in the same direction.
We assume that this escarpment rose to a height of about 2 m above the level of the plaza. The only reason for this assumption is the further assumption that the floor of the plaza JP was at elevation 8500 (see above, ?2.1?2.1). One of the goals of the 2006 excavations will be to probe precisely this situation, following the slope of the escarpment down to the level of the plaza.

The inside face of the Terrace revetment

wall {# TO=”“}     The major aim of the excavations in the J3 unit was to give us a view of the inside face of the wall. We wanted to determine the degree of structural stability of the wall in case we could in the future expose fully the wall. In so doing, we followed a suggestion made by Gionata Rizzi whom we had consulted with re-gard to the general viability of exposing the Terrace wall.
     The results were of great interest, and they confirm the conclusions based on the structural make-up of the wall, namely that what we have here is a revetment rather than a retaining wall (see above, ?3.1?3.1).
     As it turned out, the inside face of the wall presents a much smoother surface than the coarse outer face. It is coated with a reddish clay material with large limestone nodules that is still today very typical of house constructions in the area. It is called baqaya, which refers to what “remains” after gravel and large pebbles are extracted from the virgin soil. Today it is commonly used as subfloor material, and the local perception is that it serves to provide a water resistant layer that protects the floor from the humidity rising from the ground. Because of its use in our specific context, we will refer to it as “lining.”
     A suggestion by our architect, Paola Pesaresi, points in a slightly different direction. It would make little sense to waterproof the inside of the revetment wall, since that would lead to the confluence of an excessive amount of water in a single spot so as to cause eventually a concentrated runoff that would burst the revetment wall. It seems more likely that the baqaya coating served rather as a filter that distributed evenly the water infiltrations, so that they would seep in equal amounts through the stones of the revetment wall. This shows great engi-neering sophistication, in that it allows the water, streaming down from the top of the Terrace, an even flow that would not cause breaches in the wall. Samples of this coating are now being analyzed to test Pesaresi’s hypothesis.

The terrace packing and the glacis {# TO=”“} A

concomitant aim of the excavations in J3 was to reach a better understand-ing of the nature of the packing that supports the glacis. We expected that such an understanding would in turn give us an insight into the basic question of the sta-bility of the wall.
     Even though very limited in size (2x2 m at the top, to a maximum depth of 2.5 m), the excavations have given us some remarkable insights into the nature of the accumulation that made up the packing and the glacis.
     The packing consists of largely horizontal layers, in the nature of an accumu-lation rather than of a dump. The ceramic material is of particular interest because it contains a large amount of chalcolithic sherds (see below, ?6.3?6.3). We interpret this as resulting from the demolition of some late prehistoric portion of the set-tlement in the Outer City. Also, one human skeleton was found, not disturbed, but also not placed in a burial shaft and not accompanied by any offerings.
     The assumption seems likely, though it cannot be easily tested, that packing and rows of stones in the revetment wall were laid contemporaneously, thus building up gradually the edge of the Terrace.
     The top of the packing was coated with the same baqaya material that we found lining the inside of the revetment wall. This produced a very well demar-cated surface, with an upward slope identical in orientation to that of the modern tell. Following this slope, we would reach exactly the threshold of the Phase 1 temple we excavated in 1984.
     The baqaya layer reached an elevation just below the top of the stones of the revetment wall. In the material that overlays this layer, there are fragments of mudbrick, that are not set in place but are rather unevenly distributed. We inter-pret them as being the debris of the brick surface that we assume to have origi-nally covered the baqaya glacis, as shown by the trench B6.

Footings and use areas at the base of the

wall {# TO=”“}     Significantly, the area in front of the western apron in J2 shows a distinctive occupational history. Here we have use areas that became progressively more marked as the excavations proceed downwards.
     In the first place, we found substantial accumulations with strong lenses of ash and charcoal. These suggest that some activity was taking place here that in-volved burning. The occasion may have been the preparation of sacrificial offer-ings, not unlike the situation in southern Mesopotamia where a so-called “kitchen” temple is found at the base of the ziggurat, i.e., an installation where offerings are prepared to be then brought to the top of the Temple Tower itself.
     The second piece of evidence that we have consists of minor installations that we assume served to set off the area next to the revetment wall and the stair-case from its immediate surroundings. In Phase 6b we have what appears to be an offering table and in Phase 6a we have several screen walls (two of them to the height of only one course of stones) that demarcate an area west of the staircase, enclosed on three sides (see Ill. 3, 4).
     In area J1, too, we have curtain walls from the early Mittani period. But in addition, we also have a sizeable footing placed directly against the base of the wall, as if a large bench. It is interesting to note, therefore, that while the top of the wall remained apparently untouched for about 1000 years, additions were made at its base. The function of this footing is not apparent. Was it meant to serve a structural function, protecting the base of the wall, as with damp courses (kisû in Akkadian) against the base of mudbrick walls? Or was it a bench related to activities that would take place in front of the curtain walls? Larger exposure than was possible this year, towards the south, would presumably help find an answer. But what is certain from the accumulations against this feature is that it is to be dated to the early Mittani period.

The monumental staircase

Structural considerations

     Clearly the most monumental part of the whole complex is the staircase that allowed access, by means of twenty-four well preserved steps, from the plaza to the top of the Terrace and the Temple. This year’s excavations have confirmed the structural understanding of the monumental staircase as we had hypothesized it in 2004. Thus its component parts remain essentially the same as presented in last year’s report, except that much more of what was then a projection has now been verified through excavations. A minor addition is that at the base of the main apron’s side wall there is a long rough stone, laid vertically in a slightly oblique direction, that provides a front edge to the side wall. Also interesting is the fact that the rows of stone in the wall slope slightly downward in the same direction as the accumulations that we assume overlay the slope of the escarp-ment. So this wall, too, does not serve any retaining function, but is essentially a revetment wall for the side of the staircase.
     A difference in this year’s reconstruction is that we interpret the space at the top of the staircase as the base for a platform rather than for a built-up structure - but for neither do we have any evidence, except the lack of stones and the pres-ence of material that suggest the presence of mudbricks.
     Because of the orientation of the various elements, and in particular because of the presence of a perfectly symmetrical western edge of the main apron (visi-ble in the small sounding on the upper right in Ill. 2), we assume that what has been exposed so far is only half of the monumental access structure. If so, the full structure would look as in the architectural reconstruction given as Fig. 6). This full view of what we think is the entire structure with its massive access, the glacis and the high perimetral wall above it, leads us to think that it is one of the most impressive architectural achievements of ancient Syro-Mesopotamia, and certainly one of the best preserved.

Changing perceptual perspectives

     Immediately above the earlier, third millennium. floors at the base of the re-vetment wall (in J1) we have a thick deposit dating to the very end of the occupa-tion of the site, from 1500 B.C. to 1350 B.C. This means that when this period began, the full staircase was still in view, except for the bottom couple of steps. In other words, the monumental Terrace had remained in use for over 900 years, and was still fully functional when the Mittani period began. Such a degree of continuity, and of structural stability, is stunning. All the more so since the Tem-ple at the top must, instead, have been rebuilt several times: the one we excavated in 1984 dates exclusively to an earlier phase (2400 B.C.)
     As the sedimentation in the Plaza grew after 1500 B.C., the revetment wall that defined the perimeter of the Terrace came eventually to be entirely covered. As a result, the focal point of attention shifted more and more in a different direc-tion. While in the original perception the Terrace, sharply defined by the pe-rimetral wall, dominated the skyline and the perception of a visitor approaching from the south, in the new perception the focus was on the single point where a wider apron framed the reduced number of steps. The apron may or may not have been as wide in earlier times, but it certainly served in the Mittani phase to direct attention to this single remnant of the earlier more monumental Terrace.
     By exposing more of the Terrace, as well preserved as it is, future excava-tions will help considerably in further developing this type of perceptual analysis that aims at identifying the intended architectural and ideological impact of this imposing monumental complex (see also below, ?5.4?5.4).

The lower stages of the monumental access

The lower half of the staircase and the corresponding portion of the apron (dating to the same time period as the Temple at the top, about 2400 B.C.) are more regular in appearance than in the upper portion. It is possible that the irregu-larities in the upper portion are the result not of poorer craftsmanship in the origi-nal construction, but of poorer maintenance in the later periods. But as it is, the individual stones of the lower portion are more symmetrical and uniform as to dimensions and are set more evenly in place. In particular, the correlation of two steps in the staircase for each row of stones in the apron is more orderly and pro-portional.
The vertical stone that leans obliquely against the front edge of the side wall of the apron provides a coarse but well defined frame at the base of the staircase, as if serving the function of a rough orthostat.

Projections

     As we attempt to project what the full appearance of the Terrace Temple may have been like, two major possibilities may be envisaged: that the staircase as we have it now is but half of the fuller monumental access, and that there may have been a second staircase, perhaps to the west. Given the excellent state of preser-vation, it seems certain that future excavations may give a conclusive answer to these two possibilities - which we are entertaining at this stage of our work inas-much as they condition our strategy for the future.
     The wider dimensions of the southern monumental staircase are suggested by two considerations (see Fig. 6). First, we do have, in a small sounding that was first opened as part of B6, a symmetrical counterpart in the east to the top of the main apron in the west. By projecting this line to the south, we obtain a very regular geometrical figure that may be exactly what was intended by the original architect. This was the projection we already suggested in last year’s reconstruc-tion. What became clear this year is that the staircase itself, as framed by the two aprons, presents a narrower trapezoidal, or even triangular looking, shape (Pesaresi was the first one to notice this).
     The wall that appears only in the eastern section of J2 rests on top of the stone steps, and is built with the apparent same care as the lower stages of the staircase. We still cannot determine whether it belongs with the original construc-tion or is later in date. If the former reconstruction holds true, then it would serve as a wedge that splits the staircase in two, as shown in the architect’s reconstruc-tion in Fig. 6. If instead the latter is the case, then it may have served as a retain-ing wall to protect the monumental zone of the staircase and Plaza from the en-croaching developments to the east.
     The second major element of the projection is the possibility of a second staircase to the west, also shown in the full projection reproduced here as Fig. 6). This is suggested on the basis of two considerations. First, the geophysical survey of 2002 indicates the presence of a larger mass in that general area, something which is also confirmed by the general topographical appearance of the tell in its present shape. Second, it is clear that the Plaza was limited to only the space that fronted the Terrace to the southwest. In other words, even if in earlier times the Terrace might have stood completely isolated, already by ED III it was clearly visible as a distinct structural element only on its southwestern side because of the buildup to the north and the east. Accordingly, it is possible that the two monumental staircases (the one excavated in J2 and the one presumed to the west) served to frame the Plaza on its two sides - so convincingly in effect that the Plaza retained its privileged status all the way down to the final days of the sacral utilization of the Terrace and its Temple.

The Plaza

The third millennium surface and the escarpment

     We have no convincing evidence, at this stage in the excavations, of where the level of the third millennium Plaza might be or what shape it might have taken. In particular, we do not know what shape the juncture between the Plaza and the escarpment might have had. We assume that the approximate elevation of the Plaza is at 8500 and that it consists of a plain natural floor (not plastered or paved) leading directly to the foot of the escarpment on the basis of the following limited indications.
     In A19 (originally excavated as J1 west) we have, between elevations 8550 and 8700, and within a very small sounding (1x1 m), evidence of a red brickfall that, we assume, comes from the eastern perimetral wall of the Palace AP. The brickfall rests on surfaces that are indicative of natural floors, without either plas-tering or paving. Since the elevation is the same as the paved courtyard H within the Palace, we assume that this is the surface of the Plaza contemporary with the Palace itself.
     In J1 we have, just below elevation 8700, the beginning of a slope that we have interpreted as an escarpment leading down to a lower level (not excavated), that seems likely to be that of the Plaza at the presumed elevation of 8500. We assume that the accumulations in J2 against the face of the revetment wall lie immediately above the same escarpment, suggesting a similar slope as in J1.
     The relationship, in J2, between the base of the monumental staircase and the assumed level of the Plaza is at this point in time rather ambiguous. Just in front of the apron steps, the excavations have not continued below the level of the low-ermost step, while in front of the staircase itself we have descended to elevation 8670, but in a limited trench that has not given us sufficient space to even formu-late probable hypotheses. Future excavations should bring a clear answer to these questions.

The shrinking of the use areas in the Mittani period

Where we begin to see a differentiation in patterns of use is in the areas im-mediately adjacent to the revetment wall and to the apron of the monumental ac-cess. We have already stressed that the top of the wall was not touched in antiq-uity, meaning that the top third millennium stones remained throughout the cen-turies where they had first been set in place. But neither was the wall raised: it just slowly sank, as it were, in the rising tide of debris washed down from the top of the Terrace. There was instead an increased focusing of attention towards the central staircase, where we see, in the lower Mittani levels, a variety of minor in-stallations (especially curtain walls) and a different type of accumulation, in par-ticular considerable ash lenses that we do not have in front of the other areas of the wall - as already briefly mentioned above (?3.5?3.5). These diminish in size and significance in the upper Mittani strata, showing that the boundary between Plaza and Temple Terrace was losing it markedness not only architecturally, but also perceptually and ideologically.

The plaza as sacred space

     The deposition in front of the revetment wall and of the monumental access is in the nature of a very uniform natural sedimentation (see above, ?2.8?2.8). The same is true in the two squares (J1k7 to the west of the revetment wall and J3k103 to the south) opened to test the situation at a few meters distance from the face of the wall. They all tell us that the sedimentation on top of the plaza which fronted the wall was totally inert to a depth of at least 4 m. By “inert” we mean that there is no evidence of any structures such as we find everywhere else in open areas (bread ovens, pits, burials), and no objects found in any meaningful context, although there are plenty of fragments of cultural material (essentially sherds).
     We draw the conclusion that the plaza continued in use throughout the life-span of the Terrace, i.e., until the site was abandoned about 1350 B.C. Because of its sacrality, it remained privileged until the end, and nothing ever happened to change its character as an open space next to the Temple Terrace and the monu-mental stairway.
     All of this highlights an important dimension in our understanding of the an-cients’ perception of space. The Plaza served as an indispensable void in empha-sizing the mass and volume represented by the great complex of Terrace, monu-mental access, glacis and Temple. The architectural link with the (lower) Palace AP, effected by Tupkish’ architects via the Plaza and possibly via some structural element abutting the revetment wall at its easternmost edge; the ideological link with the ?bi at the base; the rough appearance of the stones of the revetment wall; and, yes, even the background of the mountain range of the Tur Abdin - it all un-derscored even more the perceptual significance of the open space in front of the rise that supported the temple dedicated, as we assume, to the main ancestral de-ity of their Hurrian pantheon. The sacredness that continued to guarantee its privileged status until the end was matched by the aesthetic appreciation of the perceptual dimension which we can still grasp today.

Perspectives on future work

     For the reasons just outlined, it seems particularly important to us to clear the area in front of the Temple Terrace to a such a distance from the revetment wall and the escarpment that it may be sufficient to allow a full enjoyment of a percep-tion similar to that of the ancients. This is all the more called for at a place like Tell Mozan, where two other conditions are extremely favorable in this respect - the excellent preservation of the revetment wall and the monumental access on the one hand, and, on the other, the pristine condition of the landscape.
     In terms of mere archaeological reasoning, however, the only major goals that remain in this respect are three: (1) one or more soundings to reach the origi-nal level of the Plaza; (2) one or more soundings that may determine whether the revetment wall is an oval or a polygon; and (3) further work in the monumental access area, to determine its relationship to the escarpment and the plaza and to explore the configuration of the structure in what we presume to be its eastern half.
     To go beyond this, and to remove enough of the inert sedimentation to make possible a full aesthetic appreciation of the great Temple Terrace, would not be justified with normal excavation techniques. Given the amount and hardness of the sedimentation, we estimate that it would take at least eight seasons of excava-tions, which would yield, it is to be expected, no new information of any archaeo-logical significance. The only possibility that can be envisaged is to use mechani-cal means, and to this end we have submitted to the Directorate General of An-tiquities and Museums a detailed proposal, in which we indicated both the ration-ale and the safeguard that would be used. Since our proposal has been turned down, we will only be able to proceed with the limited archaeological goals just outlined, and we will have to leave to the imagination of the architects and of computerized 3-D reconstructions the fruition of what would otherwise emerge as one of the most impressive third millennium architectural complexes anywhere in Syro-Mesopotamia.

(from G. Buccellati and M. Kelly-Buccellati, “The Great Temple Terrace at Urkesh and the Lions of Tish-atal,” forthcoming in SSCNH) our approach to volumetry

Schematic reconstructions {# TO=”“}Terrace and Temple (Drawing P.

Pesaresi)

Terrace and Temple: projections for central and western staircases (Drawing P. Pesaresi)

View from the West, with Palace in foreground (Drawing P. Pesaresi)

Schematic sections {# TO=”“}
Schematic section through western part of

Terrace

Schematic section through Plaza and Terrace, showing buildup to the south