1. Kingship: Its Effects on Urban Form
and Architectural Monumentality in Mesopotamia

3. • extra-terrestrial powers • signs of social hierarchies
I. Historical context for most Bronze Age cultures
Neolithic:
• extra-terrestrial powers
• signs of social hierarchies
• sedentary living; first signs of
urbanism
Bronze head of an Akkadian king, 2200 B.C.
Kingship (most Bronze-Age cultures):
• urbanism (pop. 10,000-50,000)
• marked social hierarchy
• designation and appropriation of the
center by the king/priest
• marking of the center through
design and architecture
• polytheism incl. extraterrestial
powers

4. City plan of Ur, Iraq, state in c. 2000 B.C.
II. Kingship and Mesopotamian urbanism
City plan of Ur, Iraq, state in c B.C.
reconstructive rendering

5. Jericho, Israel, c. 7000 BC (Neolithic), pop. 3000 Ur, Iraq
II. A. City walls as boundary: What are two different purposes of city walls?
Jericho, Israel, c BC (Neolithic), pop. 3000
Ur, Iraq

6. center – where the extraordinary intersects the ordinary
II. B. How is the ideology of kingship embodied within the walls of Mesopotamian cities?
center – where the extraordinary intersects the ordinary
temenos – a precinct severed from its surroundings and reserved , from the Greek word meaning to cut
Ur, Iraq
Ur, Iraq

7. intercardinal – northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest
II. B. 1. What are the formal characteristics of the temenos under Mesopotamian kingship?
intercardinal – northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest
The temenos (royal precincet) at Ur, Iraq

8. residential: organic, metabolic street pattern
II. B. 1.
Ur, Iraq
residential: organic, metabolic street pattern
overall city plan

9. Ur, Iraq: residential neighborhood
II. B. 1.
dwellings
Ur, Iraq: residential neighborhood

10. II. B. 1.
Ur, Iraq

11. On top of the ziggurat at Ur, Iraq
II. B. 1.
On top of the ziggurat at Ur, Iraq

12. Ziggurat of Ur-Nammu, Ur, Iraq, c. 2113-2006 B.C.
III. Monumentality in architecture comes hand in hand with kingship: the example of the artificial
mountain
Ziggurat of Ur-Nammu, Ur, Iraq, c B.C.

13. ziggurat – towered temple platform in the form of a stepped pyramid
III. A. Basics: What is a ziggurat? What stood on top of a ziggurat?
ziggurat – towered temple platform in the form of a stepped pyramid
Temple temenos at Tepe Gawra, Iraq, 3000
Ziggurat at Warka (“White Temple”)
Ziggurat at Ur, 2000
estimated 12m high (40‘)
estimated 21m high (65‘)
no ziggurat

14. Ziggurat at Ur Ziggurat at Warka (“White Temple”) III. A.
Ur’s 3rd platform and temple on top are entirely conjectural
house (deity’s dwelling)
Ziggurat at Warka (“White Temple”)
Ziggurat at Ur

15. Temple on top of ziggurat at Warka
III. A. 1. Temple orientation, typology, materials, and furnishings.
Tepe Gawra temple
Tepe Gawra temple
bricks = uniform units = proof of human control
aesthetic of the artificial
Temple on top of ziggurat at Warka
mudbrick
temple = house
Buttresses where beams and rafters rested
Mud-brick masonry
plastered, painted, or whitewashed

16. Temple on top of ziggurat at Warka
III. A. 1.
Temple on top of ziggurat at Warka
offering table
niche or platform for god’s appearance

17. Tepe Gawra temple Lascaux Cave
III. A. 1. a. Precedents: what paleolithic monument privileged the interior space?
Tepe Gawra temple
Lascaux Cave

18. III. B. Formal Analysis of the Ziggurat at Ur – a
III. B. Formal Analysis of the Ziggurat at Ur – a. orientation and building materials 2.
Ur, Iraq

19. Seated Statue of King Gudea w/ Architectural Plan
To be discussed in lecture on Friday
Stele of King Ur-Nammu
Seated Statue of King Gudea w/ Architectural Plan

20. III. B. a.
Ziggurat at Ur
+ bitumen mortar

21. superimposed, battered platforms
III. B. b. massing (effects of bulk, density, and weight) 3.
superimposed, battered platforms
Ziggurat at Ur
batter – the receding slope
of the wall
decorative buttresses

22. III. B. c. optical refinements
Ziggurat at Ur

23. III. C. Ritual and architecture: how does the design consolidate the king’s relationship with the gods?
Ziggurat at Ur

24. Stele of Naram Sim Ziggurat at Ur
III. C. 1. Religion/Politics: Who mounts the ziggurat/why?
Stele of Naram Sim
Ziggurat at Ur

25. symmetric composition
III. C. 2. What formal qualities help the stair ritualize the action of climbing (i.e., transform climbing into
ascent)?
symmetric composition
Ziggurat at Warka, c B.C.
Ziggurat at Ur, c B.C.

26. symmetric composition
III. C. 2.
Ziggurat at Ur
symmetric composition
steps eat into the solid mass

27. symmetric composition
III. C. 2.
III. C. 3. Conclusion: Formal properties all focus on a single point
symmetric composition
steps eat into the solid mass
primacy of the center staircase
Ziggurat at Ur

28. Ziggurat at Ur, reconconstruction c. 2000 BC
III. D. Power: Monumentality and coercion
1. Monumental space welds the members of society into a “consensus”
Ziggurat at Ur, reconconstruction c BC
Ziggurat at Ur on June 28, 2004

29. Tower of Babel by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563
II. D. 2. Religious and political realms exchange attributes
Ziggurat at Ur
Tower of Babel
Tower of Babel by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563

30. F.L.Wright, design for a planetarium, 1924
F.L.Wright, drwg for Guggenheim Museum
New York City, 1943, “an inverted ziggurat”