Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati

     As it is weel-known, Urkesh reached its acme for sure during the third millennium BC; nevertheless, previous stages in the settlement of the mound can be retraced also for earlier periods, such as the fifth and the fourth millennium BC.
     This paper explores the Late Chalcolithic Period at Mozan: evidences of LC pottery have been excavated since 2005, in a stratified context.
     After an introduction (section 1), explaining the topic (Late Chalcolithic 3 = Early Middle Uruk pottery, at most) and the history of the findings, the author presents in section 2 the contexts of the retrieval: the Temple BA, the Plaza JP and the revetment wall in the central Terrace edge J3.
     Section 3 provides us with a general description of this pottery: “ Ceramics from the Late Chalcolithic period were predominantly of a coarse chaff tempered variety and a numerically less important series of finer ware shapes. The coarse ceramics are primarily made of a heavy clay that fires to a red-brown color. Much vegetal temper has been added, but is not well mixed into the clay in the formation of the medium and large vessels” (p. 263); also, firing techniques of this period are analysed. Cord impressions found on external rim can be explained either as a decoration or as a retaining system during the drying phase. Some 'potter's marks' are also found on some vessels, indicating much probably an administrative purpose than a mere external decoration.
     Section 4 concentrates peculiarly on ceramics from J3, connected (in the following section 5) with the sealings found in the same area, presenting similarities and strict parallels (during the Middle Uruk period) with Brak, Sheik Hassan and Sarafabad.
     Section 6 offers remarks about dating and regional comparative evidences, underlining some similarities with pottery from Brak, Leilan and Hamoukar.
     In conclusion, some research questions are recalled, to which the author proposes preliminary possible answers: 1) a number of significant issues are raised by this new Mozan material and that from related sites. One of them is the question of the sharp dichotomy in ceramic production techniques between the coarser and finer ceramics; 2) also connected with the previous question are considerations regarding function. Given the fact that the coarse pottery is so prevalent and the fact that the Mozan assemblage clearly shows use-related activities (from burning patterns to use-wear on jar and bowl rims) it is apparent that the coarse ware vessels were central to cooking, serving and eating functions in Urkesh. On the other hand what were the fine vessels used for?; 3) this new evidence raises other questions regarding the role of gender in craft production and is closely linked to problems of knowledge-based transfers, or lack of such transfers. What factors facilitate such transfers and what impedes them?” (pp. 271-272). And lastly, a final statement: “ Do we see at Mozan the necessary presuppositions for an early urban development? Clearly the local environment with its savanna-like vegetation and its high rainfall pattern contributed favorably to the possibility of intensive local agricultural development. Added to this is its geographical position in the plain just south of the major trade route along the Mardin Pass leading into the nearby resource-rich Tur-Abdin sector of the Anatolian highlands. It appears entirely possible that the construction of a high terrace dominating the surrounding plain and thereby giving a structure to all the surrounding landscape visible from this terrace (and the distinct possibility that this terrace was the base for a major temple) evolved from an urban base with an articulated social, political and economic structure as its underpinning” (p. 276).
[For further information about Urkesh's pottery, see UGR under Urkesh Ceramic Typology].

[M. De Pietri – November 2019]