vities. These statuettes, found inside the precinct of the Oval, are formally comparable
to those known from the contemporaneous and neighbouring Sin Temple, where they
have been identified, by their inscriptions, as votives for the gods. Another aspect
considered by the excavators when determining the functions of the Oval was the
existence of the brick-built terrace and the structure built on top of this solid
foundation. The building history of Mesopotamia has shown that, as a rule, only
religious buildings were raised in the way found in Khafajah. The uniqueness of the
building plan, the effort needed to build it, the terrace and the artefacts are thus the
supporting parameters for the functional interpretation of the Oval as the ‘Temple
Oval’. This labelling of the Oval as religious does not exclude its further assignment
as a centre for economic activities. The analysis of the Oval’s inventories and
installations (Pollock 1999 ) has shown that, besides the cultic activities, handicraft,
trade and administration had taken place within it. As the written sources of the time
reveal, this combination of temple and economic enterprise became the rule at least
from this time and during this period of the Sumerian world.
Conflicting signals sent by the space design – the New – integrated
into or segregated from the traditionally known?According to its location and position, the Oval is characterised by two almost
contradictory principles: it was integrated into the living area, but at the same time
encircled by a double enclosure, thus invisibly shielded from the surrounding area and
emphatically walled off from its neighbourhood. It was close to the people and at the
same time obviously separate from them. The spatial closeness to the inhabitants was
obviously desired and yet it seemed that not only was heavy protection of the inner area
of the building essential, but also access could be strictly controlled as there was only one
narrow entrance. The huge enclosure announced the great power of the builders and
could, at the same time, have been read as undeniable evidence of a threat. This aspect
might be strengthened by the design of the access: only one gate allowed entrance into
the Oval and this gate was notably small and was built almost like a fortress gate in the
second building phase (Delougaz 1940 ). Control of those entering the Oval was thus
easy and possible at any time. Physically, the Oval was thus close to the older ‘traditional’
parts of the settlement, including proximity to the older temples, and at the same time
the new design separated it from any connection with the ‘Old’ and with the local past.
While the position of the Oval thus seemed to integrate the building into the
community’s needs, its design, the result of careful planning, sent the opposite signals.
The New – why necessary, and who accepted responsibility for
this building enterprise?The visible break with tradition in spatial design and architectural form leads us to
question why the change was necessary as well as to a consideration of who the people
responsible for the new development were.
Being able to break the rules and to change traditions and, even more, to do this in
public and make it visible means potentially two things: in Khafajah an interest group
had come to power that had had no benefit from the former ruling order and had at
the same time the means at hand to change the situation, to introduce a new design
–– Public buildings, palaces and temples ––