and control and at the same time establishing visibility was found for the temple of
the high priestess (Giparu). A prodigious enclosure wall formed the outer facade of the
building. Two entrances allowed access to the complex, both of which could allow
secure maximum control of those entering the building or moving inside the huge
edifice. Only after changing direction several times and passing entrance rooms and
anterooms did the visitor reach the building’s interior. Great diligence had thus been
exercised to safeguard the interior of the building from the gaze of passersby. Easy
control and at the same time difficult access into the building was the principle which
the design of both approaches followed.
The building details of the ziggurat area (e-temen-ni-gur-ru) as well as of the temple
of the high priestess (Giparu) of Ur illustrate the obvious demand of its builders and
the function of the buildings to ensure controlled access, to hide the interior from the
view of passersby, and to hinder immediate access to the centre of the building. The
public precinct and the religious architecture of Ur thus had to meet quite conflicting
demands – the request of the clients that the buildings be visible from a distance, thus
known to the public and acting as a landmark, and at the same time to hinder
uncontrolled access – by this public? – to the area.
The need to be present and immense and at the same time controlled and protected
also characterises the design of the great magazine (ga-nun-mah), built with and thus
surrounded by a broad external wall. The entrance nevertheless had been designed
differently from the ziggurat area and the temple of the high priestess. The structure
was equipped with only one (supposed) way in. This single front door was easy to
control, but allowed nevertheless more or less direct access to the interior. After
stepping into the entrance corridor the visitor turned to the left or to the right and
was immediately in the centre of the building.
The concept of accessibility developed for the great magazine, the degree of separat-
ing the inside from the outside and thus the comparatively minor effort necessary when
entering the building, is found again with the entrance design of the possible palace(?),
the kisal-gu-en. For this building, the excavators reconstructed only one door close to
its northwestern corner. This entrance was not monumental nor was the passageway
through the entrance narrowed or made deliberately complex, as seen with the entrance
of the ziggurat and the ‘temple of the high-priestess’. The visitor entered the building
through a small anteroom, changed direction once and stepped straight into the
building’s interior. Neither did the building have a thick outer enclosure wall nor was
a special effort made to protect it. This was not thought necessary by those who
planned and used this building.
Looking back to the question: who were the users? Or: what do
the access control measures reveal in this regard?It appears that access to the ziggurat courtyard and the Giparuof the high priestess,
thus to the religious buildings, was impeded with more ‘obstructions’ than access to the
worldly buildings, the palace and magazine. This seems to hint at the different vulner-
ability of religious and worldly buildings in respect of their functions. Whether
comprehensive control measures and restrictions in the former indicate more restricted
access in terms of the number and especially the background of the users remains,
again, an open question.
–– Marlies Heinz ––