“Neighborhoods in the Outer City of Tell Mozan, Ancient Urkesh: A Case Study from Survey Data,”
in F. Buccellati, T. Helms and A. Tamm (eds.), Houses and Households in ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 43-52.
The author investigates in this paper some aspects related to the topic of the ‘household’ and the ‘house-society’ (a term streamed from Levi-Strauss). ‘Household’ is defined as “as an individual unit, […] then a building block of larger society, in this case, cities” (p. 43).
The present contribution aims at “explor[ing] the intermediate structures between households and cities – neighborhoods and districts”.
After a discussion on M.L. and M.E. Smith’s theories about this topic, the author describes the concept of ‘neighborhood’ as “a socially (and possibly economically) integrated grouping that provides for the daily needs of its residents, generally restricted to size of possible face-to-face interactions” (p. 43).
An ethnographic example is provided, mentioning the study-case of a small town in Italy (Croveo, with its sub-section Beola), describing the social dynamics of neighboring within this small center.
Later on, the author focuses on Urkesh: “This paper uses data from a surface survey and excavation at Tell Mozan, ancient Urkesh, to explore the concepts of the neighborhood and the district” (p. 44).
After having sketched a brief history and a geographical description of the site, the methodology is explained, including the use of “a combination of remote sensing, surface survey, geomagnetic survey, and small test excavations” (p. 44); furthermore: “In order to identify neighborhoods or districts at Tell Mozan, it is necessary to identify potential archaeological correlates for these zones.
Detecting the presence of neighborhoods in ancient cities is predicted on the understanding that these areas exist within ancient cities” (p. 45). Three indicators for neighborhoods are outlined: ‘areas bounded by physical boundaries’, ‘areas of spatial or social distinctiveness’ and ‘spatial clusters of buildings’ (an in-depth analysis about these concepts is on p. 49). The ceramic distribution at Mozan (compared with other sites as Mashkan-shapir) “shows differences in the density and distribution of artifact types across the outer city and […] the distribution of materials within the survey data can be used to explore the possible organization of the outer city at Mozan” (p. 46), trying to determine the actual extension of Mozan’s outer city. Pebble-temper and mica-grit cooking wares, ceramic kiln waster and ceramic slags are mostly included in this analysis.
Area OH2 (where sealings have been found) is investigated and its “location […] near to the city wall suggests that the administration was concerned with the movement of goods into and out of the city” (p. 49). Another indicator of an ‘administrative thought’ are streets and roads: “These boundaries were created through top-down centralized authority, restricting the growth of organic neighborhoods and situating them within the social framework of the urban administration. Evidence from the geomagnetic study shows a mix of top-down and bottom up planning in the arrangement of streets and the directionality of the major roads” (p. 49).
To sum up: “Based on the archaeological data from Mozan’s outer city we can begin to see the spatial organization of the third millennium city. Evidence can be seen that suggests that while Mozan was a large integrated urban center, localized communities existed within the larger framework. Neighborhoods were not organized by craft or specific functions but instead represent integrated and mixed activities” (p. 50).