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
Stratigraphy
The Terrace: revetment wall, packing and glacis
Schematic reconstructions
Schematic sections

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 structure at Tell Mozan belonging to this phase, which (termed Phase 1) has been applied 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 (= AP), 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 ābi 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

As a result of the work conducted in the 2005 season we now have a good understanding not only of the stratigraphic history , but also of the structural composition of the Terrace . By way of introduction, we will highlight here the major conclusions of our analysis.

The Terrace consists of five major components (see Fig. 1).

At its base, a fairly steep escarpment bridged a difference in elevation of about 2 meters between the level of the Plaza and the base of a stone wall that ringed the Terrace.
An inner core (not excavated, but only inferred) represents the earlier Terrace, accessed by a similarly earlier version of the monumental staircase.
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.
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, probably 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 begin, 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 constructed 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 indirectly) 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 Temple 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, ), 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 ābi, 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 ābi 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 ābi, too, should give evidence of a much earlier tradition, possibly going back to the beginning of the settlement at the start of the third millennium. 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

The major stratigraphic aims were:

to 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);
to open a sounding on the inside of the wall to ascertain the nature of the Terrace core;
to follow the staircase to determine what might lie at its base;
to 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 BT, 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 order to gain insight into the construction techniques of both the wall and the terracing. 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 reasons 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 (dating 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 considerably 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 evidence comes from two locations.

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.
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. Given the way in which we can assume the terracing was built, it is clear that this material was brought in from an original context at another location, presumably a Late Chalcolithic 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 certain by the nature of the accumulations that abut their base in J1 and J2. Typologically, the ceramics from the layers that abut the lowest 50 cm or so of the wall belong to Phase 1 or earlier, for the phase sequence, and below 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 typologically 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 successive 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.

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 engineering work, and is so clearly integrated with the inside coating of the revetment wall, that it stands to reason to assume that it is the original top of the Terrace. 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 preservation 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.

The immediate superposition of mid second above mid third millennium material 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 uncover Khabur period strata.

The re-organization of the space around 1500 B.C.

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 Mittani times. 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 portion 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, possible that the apron may have been repaired in later times, in which case the evidence from the pottery underlying its extreme western end would be inconclusive.

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 upper part. In the upper part, the reverse is true, and the apron, too, shows irregularities 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, the use areas seem to have been shrinking progressively with the passing of time, and the major reduction seems to have coincided with the major discontinuity just noted, which we consider the main transitional 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

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 sedimentation – the only exception being the use areas immediately adjacent to the monumental access area in J2 (see below). 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 evidence 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 boulders 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 Terrace 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 identity 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

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 inhabited 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 center had waned, so that this scattered occupation would reflect the transition to Assyrian times.

The Terrace: revetment wall, packing and glacis

TEXT TO BE WRITTEN

The base of the Terrace revetment wall and its structural features

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 foundation trench in the sections, and the escarpment abuts the very base of the wall, its top being only about 20 cm 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 evidence 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 m 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).

The escarpment at the base of the wall

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). 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

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 regard 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).

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 engineering 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

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 stability of the wall.

Even though very limited in size (2 × 2 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 accumulation rather than of a dump. The ceramic material is of particular interest because it contains a large amount of chalcolithic sherds (see below). We interpret this as resulting from the demolition of some late prehistoric portion of the settlement 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 demarcated 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 interpret them as being the debris of the brick surface that we assume to have originally covered the baqaya glacis, as shown by the trench B6.

Footings and use areas at the base of the wall

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 involved burning. The occasion may have been the preparation of sacrificial offerings, 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 staircase 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.

Schematic reconstructions

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

Schematic section through western part of Terrace

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