Power and Architecture

Public buildings reflect the investment of social resources and they are usually interpreted as the embodiments of political, social, religious and economic power. The architecture of such buildings is often especially devised to reflect the performance of this power, incorporating a symbolism that served as a signpost for a particular social order. This symbolism was especially carried by monumentality and enhanced by scale, location, decoration, materials and visual impact. By making particular use of the natural landscape and the artificially created environment, the monumentality of the public buildings helped to improve social cohesion and legitimated a particular societal system. Moreover, their intergenerational use conveyed such buildings great potential for communication and remembrance, especially during specific ceremonies.

Studies of religious-political development in such societies as Mesopotamia or Minoan Crete have indicated that the intensification of political complexity is often accompanied by an escalation of ritual activity and the development of new varieties of it. This expansion and reorganisation of ritual can be interpreted as part of the effort to communicate and sustain new elite ideologies. An obvious Near Eastern example is provided by pre- and early urban southern Mesopotamia, where increasing religious-political complexity is associated with the construction of larger temple complexes. The elite preoccupation with and dependence on ideological legitimisation is aptly illustrated by the fact that the majority of early Mesopotamian royal inscriptions deal with the construction or renovation of temples.

The workshop aims to unite theoretical and practical researchers of monumentality in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean to discuss to what extent use was made of architecture in the representation of power. From a mature moment onwards in the Uruk period in Mesopotamia and from the Early Minoan/Helladic period in the Aegean, about a millennium later, monumental buildings appear, seemingly two unrelated developments.

But was this really the case? What are the origins of monumentality in the Near East and Aegean? To what extent did these buildings acquire a special significance as architectural manifestation of a ruler? What are the methods used to address monumentality in the Near East and the Aegean? If architectural manifestation should be seen as an ongoing development reflecting an always evolving social organisation, how did it help the legitimisation process?

Information provided by: http://www.fltr.ucl.ac.be