Staircases

Giorgio Buccellati – June 2006

Introduction
The rule of asymmetry to the east of the staircase
The staircase itself
The “apron”
The flank walls
Articles

TEXT TO BE WRITTEN”

Introduction

The staircase is the most monumental, and best preserved, portion of the Temple Terrace.

It includes a number of different elements, that show great architectural sophistication.

Just as remarkable is the fact that the structure lasted for more than one thousand years, from at least 2400 B.C. to about 1350 B.C.

Because of the engineering skill with which it was built, it survived the test of time without damage.

And because of its sacrality, it was respected at all stages of its history, no stone ever being removed for other uses.

First Staircase

A stepped structure stair1 is located directly south and under stair2, keeping the same orientation. Stair 1 consists of three steps with a southwest-northeast axis. The exposed portion is 2.35 m wide and spans an overall height of about 0.80 m from the elevation of 86.20 m to the elevation of 87.00 m. The steps continue to the east and west under floors and accumulations. The steps are made of large and medium sized roughly dressed limestone blocks with a flat plain surface; under the larger stones there are small stones and a layer of mud mortar and baqaya in order to level the uneven backside of the stones.

1. The first step measures 0.40 m in height and 0.20 m in depth, with an overall width of 1.98 m. It is composed of four medium-sized stones arranged in an approximately straight alignment, resting upon an underlying reddish lens of bakaya and small stones. These lower stones are set in a straight line and aligned with the front edge of the upper stones, together forming a shallow, wall-like construction. This feature serves as substructure of the staircase, providing a level surface and structural stability prior to the placement of the stair stones. Pavement 1 consists of a sequence of pavements of small sherd, bone and pebbles, abutting the substructure and suggesting to its initial phase of use. A second seqence of pavements made of large pebbles run up against the substructure and the real step of the staircase, suggesting a second use phase.
2. The second step overlaps the first and consists of 4 medium sized stones laid parallel to the first step. The step is 1.97 m wide with a tread depth of 0.46 m and a tread height of 0.20 m. A second sequence of pebble pavements.

layer of baqaya f391

3. The third and last step consists of 4 large stone blocks laid parallel to the previous steps. It is 2.35 m wide with a tread depth of 0.69 m and a height of 0.20 m. This step is overlapped by the large stones under the first step JPs2 and between the stones there is a 5 cm thick layer of mortar. The use of this step is attested by a third series of pebble pavements. At hte end of this pavement sequence, the staircase is compleatly covered (see v95).

Apron

Second Staircase

The rule of asymmetry to the east of the staircase

We opened 8 squares in J4, with the goal of reaching a level equivalent to the western primary apron. Our assumption seemed inescapable, that there should be to the east a specular version of this apron, and possibly even of the secondary apron.

The new interpretation of the secondary apron, resulting from the excavations in J3 (1.3.3 and 2.2.1), first suggested otherwise. Since the presumed upper apron was in fact a reduced monumental access, which did not flank the staircase, but rather replaced it; and since in J4 a mudbrick wall effectively blocked the original staircase – it seemed clear that access to the glacis had been, in the later periods, deflected to the west, thereby lessening the significance of the centrality of the staircase itself as it related to the Temple.

Even so, the existence of an eastern primary apron could not be immediately excluded. The main supporting argument was the oblique line that already had been exposed in part in an earlier C2 trench, an oblique line which continues strongly to the south (Fig. 11). This line is a clear mirror image of the one to the west, and the overall configuration is such as to imply that it had been conceived as a single structure from the beginning. But if so, it seemed equally “certain” that the oblique line should continue south to a point where it would match with full symmetry the oblique one already exposed to the west. But symmetry does not seem to have been a Hurrian aesthetic canon. For it seems now just as “certain” that there was no matching eastern apron. The reasons are two.

First, there is a wall that sits astride the staircase itself (Fig. 7). This wall had been exposed last year already, but we assumed, too hastily as it turned out, that it was a later addition. This year we decided (at the insistence of Federico Buccellati, who felt that the situation may not be as we had concluded last year) to probe more closely the base of the wall. And it turned out that the wall was in fact bonded with the staircase itself, thereby indicating that it was part of the original construction. But if so, this strongly suggested that there was no matching apron on the other side, and that the wall was the eastern boundary of the staircase itself, continuing, as it were, the line of the revetment wall – but jutting sharply to the south.
Second, a sounding just to the east of this same wall found no trace whatsoever of the steps that should have been there had the staircase been constructed symmetrically. The excavations went well below the level of the steps immediately to the west, and there we found immediately levels dating to the fourth millennium.

Now, it is still conceivable that an original symmetrical eastern wing of the staircase may have been removed in antiquity, and that the north-south wall was bonded at that point in time with the portion of the staircase that had been left to the west. But this would have had to have occurred at a time when the full staircase was still entirely visible, i.e. the early second millennium at the latest. It seems strange that (a) a visible monumental staircase should have been so curiously halved, and (b) that fourth millennium layers should be found at a level equal or even slightly higher that the presumed matching steps to the west. To these questions we should be able to find an answer in the next season of excavations.

The staircase itself

Fully preserved top to bottom.

The “apron”

Ways of identifying it.

The flank walls

TEXT TO BE WRITTEN

Articles

The Great Temple Terrace at Urkesh and
the Lions of Tish-atal The monumental staircase in J2
A detailed analysis of the staircase and of its component parts. ### Introduction move to chronicle
A small sounding carried out by the German team (B6), as well as the general configuration of the staircase, suggests that the staircase as currently exposed is only one half of an even more monumental complex. We have already opened up part of this area, and will continue in the hope of obtaining a full view of the staircase as projected in the next slide...

### Projection

Here is an alternative projection, flipping the photo of the staircase as seen from the south.

Whether or not this will indeed be the view at the end of the 2006 season will remain uncertain until we carry out our excavations. It is possible that the organization of space may have been asymmetrical...

### Structure There are clear indications that only the western portion of the Temple Terrace (left) was always empty of buildings, whereas the eastern portion (right) was built-up even in the third millennium. If so, it is possible that the dividing line between the empty and the built-up area may have been further to the west -- in which case we would not have the double apron and triangular staircase as projected here.

In either case, the overall picture of the urban complex would be along the lines of the reconstruction above (in the drawing by Paola Pesaresi). Rather than an oval, the Temple terrace look more like a triangle, possibly flanked by two staircases (if the projection of one facing the Palace were to be correct).