University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Honors Scholar Theses Honors Scholar Program Spring 5-9-2010 Architecture in Archaeology: An Examination of Domestic Space in Bronze Age Mesopotamia Megan E. Drennan University of Connecticut - Storrs, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses Part of the Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque Art and Architecture Commons, Anthropology Commons, and the Architectural History and Criticism Commons Recommended Citation Drennan, Megan E., "Architecture in Archaeology: An Examination of Domestic Space in Bronze Age Mesopotamia" (2010). Honors Scholar Theses. 167. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/167 Architecture in Archaeology: An Examination of Domestic Space in Bronze Age Mesopotamia Megan Drennan Honors Thesis Spring 2010 1. Introduction Built structures have always attracted interest, but just as the study of archaeology has changed drastically over its history, so has the study of architecture within the field. The first surveys of architecture focused on the monumental building achievements of cultures such as the ancient Maya and Egyptians. Concentrating on remarkable features along the lines of V. Gordon Childe’s characteristics of civilizations, large structural works were specifically sought after. Many archaeological expeditions over the centuries have focused on these large structures. Yet, as archaeology has developed, interest has shifted in many areas from the extraordinary to the everyday (Steadman 1996: 53). Recent studies in architecture have begun to focus on domestic settings in order to better understand the day to day lives of the common citizen (Sanders 1990, Fisher 2009). The ‘built environment,’ or the way humans manipulate their surroundings and create structures, concerns both of these domains. The examination and study of private household buildings, when combined with established knowledge of elite, political, and religious spheres of society, supplies archaeologists with a more versatile, well-rounded perspective. Architecture is often a canvas for changes with a society or culture. Social, economic, or political shifts within populations materialize as modifications in the built environment. As Hiller and Hanson (1984: 27) assert: The most far-reaching changes in the evolution of societies have usually involved or led to profound shifts in spatial form and in the relation of society to its spatial milieu; these shifts appear to be not so much a by-product of the social changes, but an intrinsic part of them and even to some extent causative of them. The frequent correlation between major changes in society and those found in architecture demonstrate that these links are not merely coincidences. One example is the shift from round to rectilinear homes, which is connected to changes in intensification and family dynamic. As production was controlled increasingly by families, the household became the main economic 1 unit of a village. Storage became personal and selective, as seen in rectilinear houses. This indicated a major change from more egalitarian villages where resources were shared, to a hierarchical society were social stratification was prevalent (Flannery 1972: 48–9). Research of architecture in archaeology has not had a direct, well-defined history nor a singular academic pursuit (Vila, Rotea and Borrazás 2003: 2, 10). In fact, it could be argued that the discipline has only recently begun to take shape. Architecture has always had its place in archaeological studies of the past. Archaeologists and historians in the early 1900s knew that architecture was an important part of culture, but did not attempt to speculate on the relationship between the two (Saile 197: 157). Now in the past few decades, the ‘built environment’ is being examined on its own. Instead of being listed and categorized as an artifact, perhaps useful for dating or as artwork, structures are inspiring new theory and methodology with which to study them. Authors such as Sharon Steadman (1996) and Susan Kent (1990a) have sought to organize the tangled past and theory of architecture. The study of architecture within Mesopotamian archaeology focused on monumental, elite structures of urban centers for 150 years. Only recently have studies of domestic buildings begun to be carried out and new methods of analysis are continuously being applied to sites previously excavated (Steadman 1996: 53). This study will focus on spatial methods, such as access analysis and visibility patterns. Using these techniques and data collected from the Early and Middle Bronze Age, the following questions will be addressed: 1. Does the spatial patterning of Mesopotamia support the theory of extended families living in the same household? And, do the spatial relationships between rooms suggest a hierarchical multifamily structure? In order to accommodate several families, a house would have to be a significant size and contain several living 2 quarters. Living rooms may be determined by their position located off of main hubs, such as courtyards, and by a reasonable amount of privacy. Stratification of family authority is also anticipated to be reflected through placement and privacy. Noticeable differences livings rooms’ in size, control on other spaces, and amount of isolation could indicate that a family hierarchy was present and replicated within these structures. 2. What does the structure of the household relate about privacy beliefs within Bronze Age Mesopotamia? Privacy will appear in architectural structure as a variation of depth and the amount of access to a space. Deeper systems require moving further into a house in order to reach certain rooms. Privacy may also be shadowed in the amount of integration into the household a visitor would have experienced. It is expected that examining the distance of the front doorway from the main center of the house will offer insight, as well as studying the amount of space that is visible to a guest. 3. What changes in structure can be witnessed in homes through the Early and Middle Bronze Age? 2. Background Mesopotamian Archaeology One of the defining shifts studied in Mesopotamian archaeology is the development of cities. In southern Mesopotamia, cities developed and were controlling social and economic organization by 3500 BCE (Stone 1995: 236). The creation of these large centers is attributed to the rise of temples as sources of religious and administrative power. They controlled all aspects 3 of society: “writing, government, judicial system, fine art and architecture” (Stone 1995: 236). As these cities grew, so did their trading networks, which allowed for an increasing variety of imported goods and wealth, and also facilitated the spread of Mesopotamian culture. Around 2800 BCE, cities began to compete as they started encroaching on one another’s territory. Struggles in the hinterland of these centers incited many rural inhabitants to move into the continuously growing cities, causing significant increases in their populations. Disputes also caused cities to increase fortifications; therefore around this time period, large construction projects such as fortifying walls were undertaken. Stone (1995: 236) also attributes the appearance of war to the development of the palace and a new domain of leadership. The palace, and the group of elites that controlled it, became the administrators of the political and military spheres, though the temple continued to exert control over religion, economy, and the palace as well. Both archaeological research and records show that elites and ‘commoners’ lived next to one another in residential areas of the cities, however the stratification between to the two groups is obvious. The hierarchy created by the temple and palace systems was pervasive and structured. Citizens connected to the political or religious spheres were considered superior; their homes and institutions, like the palace itself, demonstrated their wealth and prominence (Stone 1995: 241). Among the residential structures were workshops, demonstrating the variation of occupations, such as working with ceramics, metal, or stone (Stone 1995: 242). By the Old Babylonian Period, around 1900 BCE, the nature and amount of control the temple wielded began to change. Though temples appeared to continue growing in size, the palace seemed to grow as an authority (Robertson 1995: 451). Both powers maintained the 4 possession of large areas of property, which were often worked on by citizens on behalf of the authority. Land was also loaned to those in need or to private businesses (Robertson 1995: 452). As cities became more integrated and stratified, ties of blood and clan became less influential than ties to the community. Since inhabitants considered themselves first as residents of these urban centers, political and social loyalty was important (Greengus 1995: 469). The new development of laws, as early as 2100 BCE, was a major factor in allegiance to these authorities (Greengus 1995: 471). However, immediate family and extended-family links remained significant, especially in regard to property and intra-family authority (Greengus 1995: 469, 478). Unsurprisingly, Mesopotamian archaeology over the past century has focused on the monumental structures attributed to the elite palace and temple population. The draw of these artifacts is understandable; the capacity of influence these authorities possessed and the vestiges of it left behind in the form of substantial works of