The use of monumental architecture as a demonstration of power is thus not to be
ignored. The opposite side of this coin is the destruction of earlier monuments and
with this the visible and apparent dismantling of those who had previously been in
charge of the design and layout of the public architecture.
The new powerful elite of Uruk, originating in the time of layer IVb, had obviously
not been successful in establishing themselves and their built symbols as representatives
of the traditional local order of Uruk. Rather they must have experienced a severe
setback. The Square building was demolished during the lifetime of layer IVb, so that
the monumental sign of the ‘new’ secular power was entirely erased and any concrete
memory of that time wiped out. Those circles, presumably responsible for this
complete withdrawal of memorial options and those who now pretended in turn to
represent the local tradition of Uruk, made the power of their understanding of
tradition unmistakably clear when creating the monolithic ‘traditional temple D’, a
revival of ‘the good old times’ and a sign of the now ruling order that was also not to
be overlooked.
According to the above interpretation, Eannafunctioned first of all as a religious
centre, followed by its function as the centre for religious and political activities, while
the end was characterised by the attempt to re-establish the original situation: the use
of Eannaas a centre for exclusively religious concerns. The built environment of Eanna
was the materialised result of the intentions as well as of the needs of the powerful elites
of Uruk. Architecture and spatial design also pointed plausibly to competition between
the religious and the secular elite for power and the means to control the public
architecture of Uruk.
If the powerful elites of Uruk were the builders of Eanna, who were the users?
The built heritage of the Eannacontained sufficient evidence to identify its builders
with some certainty. To reconstruct the users of this precinct turns out to be far more
challenging, if not impossible. The only parameters suitable for reconstructing the
customary use and the potential users of Eannaare, on the one hand, accessibility and,
on the other, measures that had been taken to allow people, even in large numbers, to
gather in the temples and cultic area.
The tripartite buildings as well as the spacious halls and courtyards presented a very
‘open’ building style, characterized by the notably large number of doors that poten-
tially allowed a large number of people to enter and leave these buildings simultane-
ously. Likewise the overall spatial design of Eannapotentially allowed the accumulation
of large groups inside the temenos. The plan of the area as well as the floor plans of
the buildings themselves signalled approachability, permeability and easy access. The
potential for public access and the use of Eannaby the inhabitants of and visitors to
Uruk was given by the design of the buildings. The spatial design of Eanna, however,
sent quite contradictory messages about its accessibility and that of the individual
buildings. Eannahad been walled off, and this makes it clear that those responsible
for its design could have controlled or prevented access whenever they desired.
Alternatively, was the wall built around the Eannain layer IVb, sending the opposite
message, namely, that of exclusivity and thus of the exclusion of the public? This
remains an open question. Who the users of the Eannawere can be positively answered
in the case of the elite but stays an unanswered question concerning all other groups.–– Marlies Heinz ––