A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture

Gwendolyn Leick, Dr Gwendolyn Leick

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN:
  9780415002400
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134988501
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: History of Architecture
• Index: History

This Dictionary gives a comprehensive survey of the whole range of ancient Near Eastern architecture from the Neolithic round huts in Palestine to the giant temples of Ptolemaic Egypt. Gwendolyn Leick examines the development of the principal styles of ancient architecture within their geographical and historical context, and describes features of major sites such as Ur, Nineveh and Babylon, as well as many of the lesser-known sites. She also covers the variations of typical ancient architectural structures such as pyramids, tombs and houses, details the building material and techniques employed, and clarifies specialist terminology.

T

tell

Arabic word describing the mound formed by accumulated débris of successive mudbrick settlements. When a mudbrick structure falls into disrepair, the fabric of the walls soon disintegrates and the bricks are not worth salvaging. Instead, the walls are levelled and a new building erected on top. This slow process of decay and reconstruction builds up multiple layers of habitation which are detectable by archaeological soundings. Wholesale destruction in raids or wars afflicts large sectors of a settlement and thereby gives the excavators a change to investigate buildings that are contemporary. A mature tell is composed of many occupational layers of various thicknesses and the lowest is usually the earliest stratum. But when the surface of a mound’s summit became too small, the foot of the mound might have been inhabited as well, perhaps building up a new tell alongside the older one. At any rate, evidence of pottery and written texts, if available, is needed to establish a valid stratigraphic sequence of habitation.

Tell Abada

Mesopotamia, see map page. Chalcolithic settlement of the Ubaid period (5th millennium BC). The houses of the earlier level III had several rooms surrounding rectangular courtyards. At level II, Tshaped (cruciform) courtyards (or halls) became characteristic, and there is evidence for industrial installations (domed kilns for firing pottery). One large building (temple?) had three T-shaped courts/halls and buttresses on the outside, another with a similar internal organisation—entrance to a small square room leading to courtyard/hall and other rooms—lacked buttresses. These buildings remained fundamentally unchanged to level I. The tripartite plan and the T-shaped spaces are the earliest examples of an architectural tradition which culminated in buildings of the Eanna precinct at URUK.

Jasim, S.A., Iraq 45 II (1983) 165–186

Tell Agrab

Mesopotamia, see map page. The bestknown building on this site is a large sanctuary, the Shara temple, dating from the Early Dynastic (or Pre-Sargonic) period (c. 2700–2400 BC). It was surrounded by an almost square, severalmetre-thick enclosure wall with external buttresses. The entrance was a monumental gateway flanked by projecting towers. The interior space was divided into a number of clearly defined units grouped around a courtyard, comprising two major and some minor shrines, residences for the priesthood, store rooms and magazines etc. The central shrine (19m×5.5m) was on a BENT-AXIS between an ante-chamber and a side room, with two doorways at the far end of the long walls, on opposite sides. A double row of altars(?) was set across the centre of the room, with a screen wall behind. The other shrine had two cellae, also with a bent-axis approach from the inner courtyard.

Tell Agrab: Shara temple (after Delougaz, Lloyd)

Delougaz, P., Lloyd, S., ‘Presargonic Temples in the Diyala Region’, Oriental Institute Publications 58 (Chicago 1942) 218–288

Tell al-Rimah (ancient Karuna)

Mesopotamia, see map page. The most extensive and interesting architectural remains date from the 19th C BC. The Temple of Ishtar is better preserved than any other early 2nd-millennium sanctuary. Though within the Mesopotamian tradition, it has individual characteristics. The temple has a square ground plan (46m×46m), a central courtyard and a symmetrically disposed double range of rooms. The ante-cella and the smaller BREITRAUM-CELLA behind it, abutted against the ziggurat set against the W side of the temple. The exterior walls and those of the courtyard were articulated with an intricate system of slender half-columns, reveals and pilasters, which were carefully adjusted to the viewpoint of the observer. They also reflect the disposition of rooms in the interior. The main entrance was emphasised by projecting towers. A staircase next to the entrance led via a right turning to the roof terrace. It was supported by a series of brick vaults constructed with great ingenuity. When the temple was restored during the 15th C BC its main dispositions remained unchanged.

Tell al-Rimah: temple and ziggurat (after Oates)le)

The Palace is contemporary with Yasmah-Adad’s of MARI, although much smaller. It is divided into two rectangular blocks with an inner courtyard each and surrounded by a massive (2.5m thick) wall. The western block was for representative functions and had higher walls, whereas the eastern unit was the residential area. Noteworthy is the extensive use of vaulting. The Late Assyrian temple (9th C BC) conformed to the standard type of the Assyrian longroom sanctuary, with a small cella partitioned off from the single shrineroom by tongue walls. The walls were faced with orthostats representing lions.

Oates, D., Iraq 27 (1965) 62–80; 28 (1966) 122–139; 29 (1967) 70–96; 30 (1968) 115–138; 34 (1972) 77–86

Tell Arpachiya

Mesopotamia, see map page. Chalcolithic settlement (Halaf period: late 6th, early 5th millennium BC) of peasants and potters, who lived in large houses with long rectangular rooms without interior courtyards. The walls and floors were made of PISÉ. Of special interest are the sixteen tholoi. They were circular buildings built of pisé, on stone foundations with a low dome (not higher than 1.5m). These domes seem to have been ‘real’ domes, constructed with radiating courses. Some had a rectangular ante-chamber with a gabled roof. It is not clear whether these buildings had any specific ritual function.

Mallowan, M.E.L., Cruikshank, Rose J., ‘Excavations at Tall Arpachiya, 1933’, Iraq 2 (1934) 1–78

Tell Asmar (ancient Eshnunna)

Mesopotamia, see map page. Important site with a wealth of architectural remains dating from the beginning of the 3rd millennium to the 18th C BC.

The earliest excavated buildings were found in the N of the mound. Most notable is the Abu temple, which was begun at the end of the Djemdet-Nasr period (beginning of the 3rd millennium BC) as a very irregularly shaped cluster of rooms built of hand-shaped mudbricks. This was transformed in the Early Dynastic I (or Pre-Sargonic I) period into a more formal arrangement consisting of a vestibule, courtyards and an oblong cella (9m×3.5m), which contained an altar/ podium set against the short side, a circular hearth, and a lateral doorway at the far end. The temple was again completely rebuilt in level II (Pre-Sargonic/Early Dynastic II; c. 2700–2400 BC). It was even oriented towards N rather than W, like the previous archaic sanctuary. The ground plan is almost square and three oblong cellae were grouped around a central square space, which may or may not have been open to the sky. The building material was PLANO-CONVEX BRICKS. When this temple fell into disrepair it was levelled and the new building, the so-called ‘Single shrine temple’ (Early Dynastic III), was erected in its place. It was essentially just one large oblong with an annex to the northern side, entered through a gateway with triple-stepped flanking buttresses. The walls were twice as thick as in the preceding structures and have simple flat buttresses on all four exterior sides. The excavators assumed that the temple was roofed with a huge barrel vault and lit by small windows high up in the walls.

Tell Asmar: Square Temple (Abu temple) (after Delougaz, Lloyd)

The Northern Palace, previously called ‘Akkadian Palace’, is now thought to date from the late Early Dynastic period (c. 2700–2400 BC). The exact purpose of this vast and only partially excavated complex is still disputed. The large courtyard and its adjoining long-room seem to have remained a constant feature throughout the successive stages of adaptation, which might point to a representative function, probably combined with extensive storage facilities and possibly workshops in other parts of the building.

The central area of the site is occupied by the buildings dating from the III Dynasty of Ur (2113–2004 BC). The Palace of Shu-Sin contained a square sanctuary dedicated to the worship of the deified king. Its walls are much thicker than those of the adjoining palace building. The plan conforms to the standard Mesopotamian pattern of the period, with a central courtyard, a BREITRAUM-cella and ante-cella, and various subsidiary rooms. An almost identically laid-out if smaller version, constitutes the palace chapel. The palace itself, which abuts against the E temple with an acute angle, seems to have been accessible through a single gate at the SW. A succession of narrow corridors led to a vestibule, which gave access to the central square court-yard. A path paved with baked bricks led to an oblong room with a central doorway (the throne room?). Behind it lay a rectangular hall flanked by corridors (administrative quarters?). The varying thickness of the walls and the many narrow corridors suggest an upper storey over at least some parts of the palace.

Tell Asmar: temple and palace (Ur III period) (after Frankfort, Lloyd, Jacobsen)

Delougaz, P., Lloyd, S., ‘Presargonic Temples in the Diyala Region’, Oriental Institute Publications 58 (Chicago 1942)

Frankfort, H., Jacobsen, Th., Preusser, C., ‘Tell Asmar and Khafaje: The First Seasons at work in Eshnunna 1930/31’, Oriental Institute Communications 13 (Chicago 1932)

Frankfort, H., ‘Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Khorsabad: Second preliminary report of the Irak Expedition’, Oriental Institute Communications 16 (Chicago 1933)

Frankfort, H., Jacobsen, Th., ‘The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers of Tell Asmar’, Oriental Institute Publications 43 (Chicago 1940)

Tell Atchana (ancient Alalakh)

Syria, see map page. The site was occupied from the end of the 3rd millennium BC until the 12th C BC. The best-documented architectural remains belong to level VII (18thC BC) and level IV (15th C BC).

The Palace of Yarimlim (18th C BC; destroyed by the Hittites c. 1595 BC) was built against the fortified walls on three successively raised platforms. To the N were the official state apartments, with a large courtyard between the representative quarters and the domestic and private sector. Abutting against the palace to the S was the temple or chapel. The official apartments had orthostats of basalt lining the lower parts of the walls. Wood was used extensively, incorporated in the mudbrick walls, as well as for columns (‘Audience hall’). Staircases and substantial amounts of painted plaster, columnbases and furniture inlays, obviously fallen from above, point to the existence of upper storeys. Purely utilitarian rooms were added onto the southern residential area accommodating a mason’s workshop and a pottery. The temple (16m×13m) consisted of a long and narrow vestibule and a rectangular cella both with central doorways. It is thought that there was at least one upper storey, since a well, designed to catch libations poured from above, was found behind the altar wall.

The Palace of Niqmepa (level IV, 15th C BC) has a much more compact layout than the older structure of Yarimlim. The ground plan is rectangular (33m×30m) and the various sectors were distributed around a series of inner court-yards, retaining the functional division. An irregular forecourt was reached by stairs and a columned portico. As in the earlier palace, quantities of luxurious furnishings in an Egyptian style had fallen from the private apartments on the upper storey.

The building techniques at Tell Atchana reflect a local tradition and easy access to timber. The foundations were of stone and the walls consisted of a timber grid filled out with mudbrick, lined with basalt orthostats inside and coursed rubble outside. All was covered with plaster.

The architecture was influenced by western traditions rather than Mesopotamian ones: the temples resemble those at MEGIDDO and the palace of Niqmepa follows the design of the ones at RAS SHAMRA rather than at MARI.

Woolley, L., Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–49 (Oxford 1955)

Tell Atchana: palace of Niqmepa (after Woolley)

Tell Brak

Mesopotamia, see map page. A large mound with occupational levels from the Chalcolithic to the 14th C BC.

The most prominent early building (Uruk period, last third of the 4th millennium BC) is the ‘Eye temple’ named after the numerous eye-shaped objects found there. The largest and most interesting temple dates from the DjemdetNasr period (beginning of 3rd millennium BC). It was built directly on a platform, covering 6m of rubble from previous temples (Red Eye temple: Uruk period; Grey temple; White temple). Their sequence bears considerable similarity to contemporary structures at KHAFAJE (Sin temple) and URUK. The brickwork of superior quality consists of rectangular bricks laid in alternate courses of headers and stretchers. The exterior walls were built on slightly projecting stone plinths (80cm high) and had simple, evenly spaced flat buttresses. The walls were plastered and whitewashed and decorated with strips of ‘pencil cones’ on the outside niches. The cruciform oblong cella was lavishly decorated with stone rosettes, coloured limestone inlays and copper panelling impressed with the eye motif The podium set against the short end of the room was also adorned with a panelled frieze. The dimensions (18m×6m) of the cella are identical with those of the White Temple at Uruk and the proportion of the room’...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H
• I
• J
• K
• L
• M
• N
• O
• P
• Q
• R
• S
• T
• U
• V
• W
• Y
• Z
• Alphabetical List of Entries