Back to top: Archaeological context and distribution pattern
Bead distribution in the Temple Terrace
Beads are found in different archaeological contexts, and in the case of Urkesh, in accumulation layers in particular.
The distribution maps reveal the high concentration of beads in temple terrace area in general. However, this high concentration of beads in the Temple terrace area is only so in the second millennium, when the area began to be less cared for and the shift of the temple entrance to the west took place.
The interesting thing is the almost lack of metal jewelry items in the temple terrace area in all time periods and the complete lack of beads in the temple which means that beads were not used as offerings in the temple as they were used in Terqa for example (Liggett 1982: 18). Considering the shift of focus in the area which resulted in the loss of its sacred nature to some degree, and the evidence of a brick-fall from that area, are all valid arguments as to why there was a high concentration of bead finds there in the second millennium and not in the third millennium when the area was considered a sacred space. But the question here is why the same results were not found in the palace area after the palace was abandoned and the area shifted from an administrative quarter into an area of occupation and unofficial activities? Why are the vast majorities of the few beads found there, come from burial offering context? The temple terrace area was never a residential area or an area of scattered occupation, not even after its abandonment as a sacred area, and the brick-fall that covered the area was probably a result of a collapsing building related to temple activities, so where did the beads come from?
Two possible explanations are considered in the light of the archaeological context of the beads. The first is that, just as in our modern days, people probably wore their best outfits and accessories to go to the temple. So, on worship days, the temple terrace area was full of people wearing accessories that included beads which is not the sturdiest type of accessories considering that it was held by a thread, so chances of losing the bead accessories is very high.
The second possibility is related to an offering practice. Beads made from precious and semi-precious stones are considered valuable objects, not only for their materialistic value, but also for their inherent magical power that can prevent evil or bring happiness and balance to a person’s energy. Using beads as offerings in temples is not a strange practice in the area, but it is not attested in the temple of Urkesh. Perhaps these beads, found outside the physical parameters of the temple but within the sacred area, could be some sort of individual offerings.