Architecture

=__**ARCHITECTURE** __= by Allison Matos

=
As Mesopotamia's population grew, so did the architecture. In the early settlements of the Halafian and Samarran cultural groups, the architecture was relatively uniform, showing that there was not much inequality or hierarchy. These communities were, for the most part, egalitarian. As time went on, however, larger structures, such as, palaces, walls and temples, emerged. Architecture on a monumental scale cannot be done by one person, and the complexity of these buildings show that there were people directly in charge of drafting and overseeing the construction of these buildings and large groups of people helping construct. In the following sections, I will explain how Mesopotamian urban and public architecture reflects social hierarchies. ======


=__**The Beginnings: Halafian, Samarran, and the early Ubaid **__ =

=
have existed--did not have extravagant homes and buildings within the community. The Halafian archaeological culture was very much egalitarian. The buildings in these villages varied slightly in size, not much in shape but also varied in purpose. The slightly larger buildings were most likely used as residences while the smaller buildings were used as places to perform domestic activities, such as cooking or tool making. There were also large round communal storage facilities, called tholoi, located within the villages. These storage areas contained records of economics transactions that went on between people in the village and although from this evidence it would seem that there would need to be people to be in charge of these storage facilities which would suggest some hierarchy, but there is almost no evidence to show authority (Frangipane). ======

=
Samarran culture was more similar to the Ubaid than Halafian. The houses found at Samarran sites were multi roomed and larger than the Halafian suggesting that more people inhabited the area and there was also in-house storage. Surrounding some Samarran villages were walls, suggesting that there was conflict with neighboring polities. Still, there was no substantial size difference between the houses, however they were larger than Halafian homes. In Frangipane's article, she states, ======

=
 "The basic characteristics of the Samarra and early Ubaid societies may be summarized as follows:...stable villages of varying sizes...large standardized dwelling structures...the evident architectural recognizability of individual dwellings...The absence of large communal buildings and the presence, in some cases, of prominent architectural structures, perhaps used for cultic/ceremonial purposes...domestic storage." ======

=
The Ubaid period lasted from approximately 6000-4200 BCE. During this time the first temples were constructed, indicating the first evidence of public rituals. These temples were on raised platforms, signifying their importance in the village. Susan Pollock, in her book //Ancient Mesopotamia//, says that from looking at artifacts in Ubaid houses and temples, it would seem that the society was egalitarian and that the building of public temples was done on a voluntary basis. However Pollock points out that ======

=
"that points to the existence of some economic and social differentiation. The distinctions between temples and houses are informative in this regard. Temples were generally built on platforms, ranging from 1 meter to as much as 10 meters in height. Although they were not necessarily appreciably larger than houses...,their decorative architectural features—niched and buttressed facades, mosaic decorations, recessed portals—were usually more elaborate. Some temples were rebuilt many times through the centuries, often in ever larger and more elaborate forms" (Pollock 87). ======

These architectural features of the Ubaid temples and houses served as a precedent for those built during the Uruk period.
=**__Mud Bricks__**=  Mesopotamia is located in a very resource poor section of the world. Mesopotamia lacked building resources, such as wood and stone, but used a mixture of mud and clay to construct buildings. Evidence for the first mud bricks date back to the Neolithic time period. These bricks,were handmade and sun-dried and tended to be various sizes as result. They were created using mostly silt, some clay and little sand. Straw was also added to the mix as a binder to prevent cracking. During the Halafian, Samarran and Ubaid time periods the bricks became more uniform by using molds to make them. These sun-dried bricks were reinforced by clay and over time the structures grew to be unstable.

For centuries, the building technique referred to as //terre pise <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal;">was common. In this process, the builder would create the mud bricks, allow them to sun dry for a day or two and place them where he wall or foundation would be. This process would be repeated and the bricks would be placed around the original area to support it until the structure was complete. However, because the bricks were not completely uniform in size, shape and volume, the walls of the structure tended to be uneven and unstable. When molds for the bricks were introduced, builders realized that using a mortar, which was most likely a mixture of decomposed organic material, allowed the walls of the structure to be sturdier and thinner than they had previously been. The mortar, says Oppenheim, “was used in combination with fired bricks, and the technology of arches and domes was transposed from the level of stone block architecture to that of brick architecture,” <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(Moorey 304 ). <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The archaeological features of domes and arches were created after the invention of mold fired bricks. Since wood was not a readily available resource, the person or people who wanted to create structures using fired bricks had to have wealth. This idea is also supported with the fact that the most common places to find fired bricks were palaces and public temples. The buildings were not made entirely of fired bricks but they were used in the creation of walkways and elaborate arches. In P. R.S Moorey's suggests that the making and use of fired bricks was part of a ceremony to the gods and that a king or priest would do the honors of making the first brick. This would show the person's power and importance in society. There is also evidence from modern day mud brick making societies that bricks can be made by everyone in the village. However, some people are able to produce more bricks than others. For example, one brick maker may be able produce a few thousand bricks in a day and as a result, half a building may be made using their bricks (Moorey 305). As evident here, specialization of crafts was important to the economy of Mesopotamia. The better the brick maker, the more construction could be done. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> <span style="font-style: normal; font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> At an excavation at Hacinebi in Turkey there is evidence through architecture that there was trade between the indigenous people of Hacinebi and the people at Uruk. There is also evidence that at some point, possibly during the Uruk expansion, that people living at Uruk migrated to Hacinebi and continued to produce Mesopotamian material culture. There was a shift in architecture from stone that was used by the original inhabitants of Hacinebi, to small mud brick architecture common at Uruk and other Mesopotamian sites. This suggests that when Mesopotamians arrived in Hacinebi, they shared their construction techniques, pottery and religious ideas. There is no direct evidence that the people from Uruk took over the original inhabitants but rather they willingly adopted and incorporated Mesopotamian characteristics. This could be because the immigrants from Uruk had more efficient technology and were able to make themselves seem more legitimate <span style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(Stein et. al).

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
=__The Uruk Period__= <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The Uruk Period in Mesopotamia lasted from approximately 4200 BCE until 2900 BCE, when the Dynastic Period began. The Uruk Period was a time of urbanization in Mesopotamia when people began leaving their small villages and identifying with a city. Temples first arose during the Ubaid period, but they became much larger and aesthetically pleasing during the Uruk period. The temples closely resembled Samarran houses and were raised up on high platforms. During this period it is apparent, from archaeological evidence that there was a shift to centralized power and production and that temples and palaces acted as administrative centers where production would occur.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">The excavations at the Uruk Mound at Abu Salabikh, Iraq is an example of a Late Uruk period site. The most impressive aspect of this site is a massive wall made of mud bricks on the western and southern sides of the community. From this large wall, it can be deduced that the people there were afraid of attack. To erect this feature around half a community would take the mobilization of a large number of people. (Pollock et. al). If a community is afraid enough of attack by neighboring peoples to construct a wall, that must mean that the neighboring communities want the resources the people at the Uruk Mound. If there is authority in neighboring communities in the form of organizing people to attack, it would be logical that the people at the Uruk Mound had some sort of authority to get them to mobilize to attack and construct as well. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;"> The two most famous Uruk period architectural constructions were the Eanna precinct and the White Temple, both associated with the late Uruk Period. The White temple dates from approximately from 3200- 3000 BCE and was constructed on a large mound. This mound was also built on older, smaller buildings and stood forty feet in the air in the middle of Uruk. The sides of the mound sloped and had detailed, precise brickwork and in some areas, wooden decorations. The temple itself was extremely large and had many chambers. People who came to worship would not have entered through a door that was directly in front of the building, but a side door. The people of Uruk at this time built the White temple on top of this mound and believed that the gods would ascend from the sky, so the closer to the sky their sanctuary was, the better. The kings of Mesopotamia claimed that they were linked directly to the divine and ruled by divine sanction. They could control the construction of buildings and new temples by claiming that the gods had spoken and wanted a new structure and if their requests were not met, there would be extreme repercussions (Pollock 188). The white temple was the main home of the god and was referred to as the “high” temple. The Eanna Precinct, on the other hand, was not as high up but consisted of multiple temples. Archaeologists refer to these as a “low” temples. The gods did not necessarily visit these temples but a statue representation of a particular god would be worshiped in the low temple. The “low” temples had circular columns made of mud bricks at the entrances and the temples faced an open courtyard area. Inside these temples was a new type of decoration-- terracotta cones of different colors arranged into different shapes. During the Ubaid period in Eridu, Iraq, there was evidence of colored cones similar to the ones found at the Eanna Precinct. Archaeologists believe that the builders of the Eanna Precinct copied the Ubaid temples but made them more elaborate. In a temple in northern Sumer, there is evidence that people were trying to replicate the architectural surroundings from the White Temple and the Eanna Precinct, indicating there was exchange of information over a distance (Lloyd and Muller 15).

=Conclusion= <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">After researching and studying the architecture found throughout Mesopotamian history, it is clear that as the production of public buildings occurred so did an increase in inequality. As wealth accumulates in societies, certain people will become wealthier and others will not. People who are able to control and mobilize of large numbers of people to build massive temples to the gods had to be able to afford the resources and most likely controlled resources, such as agriculture. Since kings and religious leaders in Mesopotamia were wealthier than others, they were able to legitimize their wealth by saying the gods directly told them they were the ones to have control. In turn, kings and religious leaders had direct access to the divine and when they wanted large buildings constructed, it was legitimized.

__**Bibliography**__

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">Frangipane, Marcella. 2007 Different types of egalitarian societies and the development of inequality in early Mesopotamia. World Archaeology Vol. 39 Issue 2, pg 151-176 <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif; font-size: 90%;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">Gil J. Stein, Reinhard Bernbeck, Cheryl Coursey, Augusta McMahon, Naomi F. Miller, Adnan Misir, Jeffrey Nicola, Holly Pittman, Susan Pollock, Henry Wright 1996 Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 100, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 205-260 <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">

Lloyd, Seton. 1978 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. London: Thames and Hudson

Llyod, Seton, and Hans Wolfgang Muller 1972 History of World Architecture Ancient Architecture. Milano: Phaidon Press

Moorey, P. R. S. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Pollock, Susan, Melody Pope, Cheryl Coursey 1996 Household Production at the Uruk Mound, Abu Salabikh, Iraq. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 100, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 683-698

Pollock, Susan 1999 Ancient Mesopotamia the Eden that Never Was. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press