The Sumerian World (Routledge Worlds)

THE PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE SUMERIAN WORLD –

A RESUMÉ

The so-called renaissance of the Sumerian world in the Ur III period did not result in
re-establishing forms of public buildings known from the pre-Akkadian past. This is
not really surprising, since no homogeneous tradition of public architecture had
developed throughout the period and geographical breadth of the so-called ‘Sumerian
world’. This means that an interregional tradition of a common language, a common
script, a revival of the Sumerian literature and a roughly comparable common religious
system, kept through the ages, did not express itself at the same time in a common
building tradition. Although the Uruk powerholders ‘exported’ their local building
types into the occupied territories along the Euphrates, these building types vanished
when the power situation in Uruk changed and the old system collapsed at the end of
the Uruk period. The kings of Ur also used architecture as a symbol of their power
throughout their empire when erecting ziggurats in the most important cities of their
empire – thus beginning the New, not the carrying on of a well-known tradition. The
design of public architecture in the Sumerian world very strongly followed the needs
of local interest groups. And where the representatives of, or the power relations within,
those interest groups changed, their architectural expression changed too. Tradition or
an assumed common past did not count for (most of ) the builders of public archi-
tecture in the Sumerian world. The concrete realisation of the construction projects
thus followed chiefly local demands and orders.
The underlying principles, however, by which the spatial design and the creation
of a public architecture had been achieved, followed the opposite strategy and revealed
several common features, independent of time and space. The principle of segregating
the buildings and thus creating visibly separate precincts within the cities strove for the
seemingly contradictory goal of being seen and recognised. Thus to be perceived, a
substantial need for representation of the political had been achieved not by integration
but by being walled off. The representational needs required to be seen, at the same
time the architectural landmarks of the ruling order needed protection and secure
control. Both aims were again reached by the visible separation of the public precincts
from the communal surrounding. Being thus in and out at the same time created
furthermore the aura of a ‘visible but unknown’ sphere of the life of the elites, which
in return potentially intensified the impact of the ‘hidden monumentality’ as a
stabilising force. The measures thus taken by the elites to make their self- and
worldview visible followed the same principles throughout the Sumerian world, but,
as illustrated above, at the same time, each building was realised according to the needs
and demands of the respective builders.

AND FINALLY, LOOKING BACK TO THE BEGINNING

Several questions concerning today’s knowledge about what methodological and
theoretical possibilities exist to gain insights into the ‘world of public buildings’ were
asked at the beginning of this chapter. A short reflection on the outcomes will conclude
this contribution.
An answer to the question how can public buildings be recognised by archaeological
research is neither clear nor simple. Monumentality, space design, localisation and thus

–– Public buildings, palaces and temples ––