ones. Even if this difference was not visible for the later users of the structure, the
increased building cost was nevertheless known to those who had built it. Inside the
house, the visitor found a far more spacious interior than in the domestic houses. The
interior organisation of the complex also presents what seems to be a pre-planned floor
plan. A structure formed by two rows of long rectangular parallel rooms had been placed
in the eastern corner of the courtyard through which the user entered the building
complex. While the entrance to the total complex, placed at the northeastern edge of
the building, prevented direct access into the enclosure, the ‘house’ itself had three
entrances making it rather open and transparent. The two buildings in this area that
were called temples by the excavators are thus those that differ formally from the
majority of houses in this district.
Two forms, one function – no problem in KhafajahThe one-roomed building is named the Small Temple, while the building larger than
its neighbours was called the Sin Temple (Delougaz 1942 ). Identification of the so-
called Small Temple is based on its form, the long rectangular shape of the room, the
position of the doorway and a table-like installation in front of the short northern side
of the room. This identification was confirmed by comparing its design to that of the
cella of the second temple, the Sin Temple.
The Sin Temple received its name from a dedicatory inscription on a statuette found
in the building. A priest in the service of the moon god Sin had dedicated the statuette
to him. This votive offering and other, comparable but uninscribed statuettes and
elaborately decorated vessels made of precious imported stone, also thought to be
votive offerings, as well as the formal aspects of the building all supported this inter-
pretation.
The building forms of structures performing the same function – cult and
principles of spatial orderIt is clear that in Khafaje buildings used in the cult could take a number of different
forms.
The construction of the Small Temple and the Sin Temple did not follow an
identical figurative language (Heinz 2002 ; Ali 2002 ). The Small Temple could easily
have been one of the domestic houses, according to its location, building size and the
effort that had been necessary for its construction. That was not the case for the Sin
Temple. Those responsible for the design of this building had taken care that it was
visibly different in form and size from the surrounding houses. They had created the
recognisable ‘other’, but had, at the same time, avoided monumentality and thus
ensured, at least formally, a more or less balanced relationship between the temple and
adjacent buildings.
The formal and functional differences between the buildings and the activities
carried out in the area were obviously no reason to segregate these facilities. On the
contrary, integration, not segregation was the formal principle according to which the
spatial design of Khafajah had been organised.
–– Marlies Heinz ––