A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE: SETTINGS AND RITUALS SPIRO KOSTOF
BOOK REVIEW PRESENTATION REVIEWED BY MADHU MALUKANI (SA 1103)
KOSTOF’S APPROACH "All buildings of the of the past, past, regardless of size of size or status or status Kostof emphasizes Kostof emphasizes on the study of architecture of architecture as a whole and said, "All buildings or consequence, or consequence, should ideally should ideally be be deemed worthy deemed worthy of of study." study." His approach to architectural history stresses on urbanism along with architectural works and shows how buildings are embedded in their physical and social contexts. Kostof’s book A History of Architecture: of Architecture: Settings and rituals embodies these ideas and illustrates his new perspectives towards architectural study.
Kostof shares Kostof shares four points which he has followed in his study. The oneness of architecture of architecture‐ wherein he regards structure and aesthetics as inseparable; The setting of architecture of architecture‐ buildings can not be studied in isolation from immediate context; The community of community of architecture architecture‐cultural values of the of the society which prevent architecture from being merely a build form; The meaning of architecture of architecture‐ wherein he discusses the reason, time and purpose behind the building being what it is.
ABOUT THE BOOK The book is divided into three segments: The first reveals the origin and development of early of early cities with reference to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and other relevant civilizations. The second part discusses the medieval period, studying the urbanization of European of European countries until the 18th century and the third part discusses the influences of modernism. of modernism. Kostof has Kostof has not followed a strict chronological pattern in his depiction. The sequence is merely on the degree of evolution, yet, at times, he has laid parallels to compare the time frame. For instance he has linked the emergence of Sumer with the third rearrangement of the of the Stonehenge. This gives the reader the clear idea of time of time frame of various of various events and thereby comparisons between various civilizations can be established. While explaining the cultural and religious aspects in relation to the city, Kostof has Kostof has not neglected other details such as construction techniques and materials and their availability, hence giving a complete overview of the of the civilization. I have focused my study on the first few chapters which discuss the Neolithic era and the early settlements which set the foundations of urban of urban revolution and the cities of Mesopotamia of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
•
THE URBAN REVOLUTION
•
BEFORE THE CITIES ‐ NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENTS JERICHO, KHIROKITIA AND CATALHOYUK
•
URBAN REVOLUTION “Near East ‐ The Cradle Of Civilization” This dates back to the second millennium B.C., the time of the third rearrangement of the Stonehenge. While Neolithic Europe carried on a stone‐using peasant economy, in two spots of near east, Mesopotamia and Egypt, there were contemporary literate cultures that knew how to work metal, or organize food production, and keep written records of their transactions and beliefs. “Being Civilized” The word civilization derives from the Latin word ‘civitas’, which means city. This gives us the other accepted character of civilized humanity‐‐‐ that it has for its theatre of activities an intricate artifact, the city. But Kostof questions the fact that civilized life can not exist outside of cities and says, ‘in correlating urbanism and civilized history, we have imbued the city with positive qualities the absence of which has tended to downgrade other social organisms’. He validates this with illustrations of three settlements which ualif as a town: Jericho Khirokitia and Catalho uk.
BEFORE THE CITIES : NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS
MAP: WESTERN ASIA, ‐ . .
JERICHO, (ISRAEL), 7500 B.C.
The earliest surviving town. The story begins with the life giving source of fresh water (now called Elisha’s fountain) where hunters settled for a riculture. The earliest houses dating back to 7500 B.C. had domed houses of mud‐brick with an entrance porch and curved walls, probably an imitation of round tents of the nomadic hunters. The later houses (6500 B.C.) were rectangular with rounded corners, arranged around courtyards which were used for cooking. Several public buildings set aside with for worship were interwoven with the houses. .
The most important feature of this settlement was fortification.
The settlement covered about 3 hectares and once having reached its optimum spread, was fortified by a stone wall. This dates backs to 7500 B.C. The fort was overseen by a massive round tower, which was intimate with a series of mud‐brick enclosures, that have been interpreted as water cisterns, probably acting as curtain of defense.
JERICHO, TOWER BUILT AGAINST SIDE OF SETTLEMENT WALL (FORTIFICATION), 7500 B.C.
KHIROKITIA, (CYPRUS), 5500 B.C. This settlement shows the presence of first true street. The street running from the riverbank, uphill, forms the main spine. Unlike Jericho which was a closed town, Khirokita had an open composition with houses on either side of the street. Hence growth was not restricted. The street also showed a presence of halting place in the form of a widened platform which can be considered an antecedent to a city square.
KHIROKITIA, NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT, ca. 5500 B.C., PLAN SHOWING STREET SPINE AND HOUSES
The street was built of limestone and raised considerably above ground level, hence prevented erosion and also contributed stability to the houses. Presence of such a thoroughfare had both organizational and social benefits. There was a sense of common belonging and hence a social maturity concerning its maintenance .
KHIROKITIA , VILLAGE SQUARE, AN OBLIQUE VIEW OF THE AREA MARKED AS AN INSET.
CATALHOYUK, (TURKEY), 7000 B.C. Besides hunting and agriculture, this Neolithic settlement rests on a new rationale‐trade. Obsidian (black volcanic glass) was the main article for trade. Obsidian tools were probably traded for sea shells and flint from Syria. Another important skill they possessed was working with metal. This was too early for such technical knowledge, as metallurgy was not fully practiced until the cultures of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The settlement is believed to be enriched with shops of merchants of leather and fur, smiths making ornaments and tools and ublic markets in the midst of urban fabric.
,
,
The settlement was neither open nor closed. The buildings were grouped into tight quarters and which opened up an occasional courtyard. A continuous blank wall faced the countryside. Streets were absent. Entry of the houses was through a hole in the flat roof reached by a wooden ladder. It also acted as a smoke stack.
The shrines were laid on the same scheme as houses. Plaster reliefs of mother goddess resembling to imagery .
CATALHOYUK,
NEOLITHIC
SETTLEMENT,
ca.
7000
B.C.,
•
LAYOUT OF CITIES
•
TEMPLES AND ZIGGURATS
•
PALACES
THE CITIES OF MESOPOTAMIA
MAP: MESOPOTAMIA
Mesopotamia (from the fourth millennium B.C.) was the first settlement qualified as a city and the first to exhibit the writing tradition. Its history is divided into four broad segments of chronology. •
•
•
•
Protoliterate Period (3500‐ 3000 B.C.) Battlements of ringwalls Temple and ziggurat began to gain architectural definition First written document Early Dynastic Period (3000‐2350 B.C.) Kingship and establishment of hereditary kingship Monumental palace as an administrative centre Raising the defensive system of the city Later Sumerian Period (upto 1600 B.C.) Rise of empire, collective rule of city‐states High point of building type of ziggurat ( ziggurat of Ur‐ Nammu) The Assyrian Period (1350‐ 612 B.C.) The northern region flourished at the expense of lower Mesopotamia imposing state reliefs and palaces accompanied by decline in position of ziggurat
LAYOUT OF CITIES History before the Early Dynastic period is still blurred. However by then about a dozen cities had flourished in Sumer and towards north in Babylon. The cities were enclosed by a wall and surrounded by suburban villages and hamlets. The two monumental centers were the ziggurat complex overseen by the palace. The urban fabric was a promiscuous blend of residential and commercial buildings. At Ur, an example of a bazaar was found: a concentration of little booths along a narrow passage with doors at either ends. Ample squares and public gardens were rare.
UR (IRAQ), SCHEMATIC PLAN OF THE CITY, ca. 2000 B.C.
Street width for principle thoroughfares was not more than 3 meters. These led to public buildings and were bordered with the houses of the rich. Traffic was mostly pedestrian, however service carts and chariots have also been excavated.
Houses were grouped into congested blocks sharing party walls, against the orthogonal neat design of architects. Even while replacement, the plan of the older house had a direct bearing as the ruins were used as foundation. “The architectural metabolism constantly transformed the makeup of the cityscape which was held together by stiffer skeleton o streets.” The level of the streets rose due to the dumping of refuse leading to sinking floor levels. When the ground level got buried considerably, the house was raised to the ceiling using the round as service vault.
There were no windows towards the outside and everything opened into the courtyard.
UR, PLAN OF RESIDENTIAL AREA, 2000 B.C.
LEFT: UR, RESIDENTIAL QUARTER BETWEEN THE ZIGGURAT PRECINCT AND THE WEST HARBOR, PLAN , QUARTER, RECONSTRUCTION DRAWING
TEMPLES AND ZIGGURATS Small shrines were scattered throu h out the fabric. The had two standard features: a niche of epiphany marked by the statue of deity or an alter, and a table for offerings. By 3500 B.C., the evolved into monumental temples. The temple complex was the hub of an economic system that has been described as “theocratic socialism”. It was surrounded by its own protective wall, forming the . tremendous platform called the ziggurat and was free of the pressures of density in its ample precinct.
UR, ZIGGURAT PRECINCT, THIRD DYNASTY, 2113‐2006 B.C.
e exper ence o z ggura emp e res e on reveren a c m ng. owever un e e ear er emp es, p ace n open landscape at the highest of the city, the urban temple exhibited a different approach. Dedicated to lesser deities, it was built closer to the living space of the city and was surrounded by common structures. Sin temple II at Khafaje illustrates the result of this condition. The temple became the innermost of a series of enclosed spaces with a single entrance in one of its long sides. This is in complete contrast to white temple at Warka, which was an open lofted undisturbed structure.
LEFT: KHAFAJE, OVAL TEMPLE, ca. 2650‐2350 B.C.;
RIGHT: WARKA, WHITE TEMPLE, 3500‐3000 B.C.
PALACES The zi urat in time lost some h sical rominence to other focal oints of the urban fabric, the principal one being the palace of the king. A
During the Assyrian period, the ziggurat became a mere adjunct to the king’s , .
B
C
D
SKETCH PLANS SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF ZIGGURAT (RED) AND ROYAL PALACE (GREEN) : A. AT UR, ca. 2000 B.C. B. AT ASSUR ca. 1800 B.C. C. AT ASSUR, ca. 1200 B.C. D. AT KHORSABAD, ca. 700 B.C.
A similar phenomenon was observed a Mari at about 1750 B.C. The proportions got reversed here. The palace here behaved as a microcosm of the city, with its walls, residences, temples, offices, schools, and so on.
ROYAL PALACE AT MARI, ca. 1750 B.C. , GROUND PLAN
e na e asement o t e z ggurat occurre at orsa a . The palace here, rather than being surrounded by the fabric of the city, showed its back to the city walls. The palace which had started out as an accessory to the ziggurat, now grew at the expense of it, into a theatre of absolute power and intimidation.
LEFT: KHORSABAD, THE POSITION OF ZIGGURAT IN THE PALACE COMPLEX. ABOVE: KHORSABAD, THE PALACE IN RELATION TO THE CITY
•
THE LAND OF EGYPT
•
THE BURIAL OF KINGS
•
THE TIME OF THE GODS
•
ENDURANCE OF THE CULT
ARCHITECTURE OF ANCIENT EGYPT
MAP: ANCIENT EGYPT
This sophisticated culture of river settlements is attributed with conservatism, or rather the balance it sustains between innovation and tradition. •
,
until Memphis and Upper Egypt , southwards until Aswan. Later King Menes of Upper Egypt invaded the north and unified the country and established its capital at Memphis. This coincides with the Protoliterate Period in Mesopotamia, about 3000 B.C. ARCHAIC PERIOD, 3000‐ 2665 B.C. : Architecture showed great advances during this period; beginning with brick tombs and palaces it evolved to stone monuments like those at Saqqara. This coincides with the early dynastic period in Mesopotamia. •
OLD KINGDOM, until 2150 B.C. : Marked by the emergence of absolute Kingship, the rule of Pharaoh. The architectural sequel was followed by true pyramids as those at Giza. •
, ‐ . . : e per o o soc a an po t ca c aos, towar s t e en o t r m enn um, came to an end and the capital was established at Thebes. Dominance of religion over funerary architecture and priesthood over kingship was observed. •
NEW DINGDOM, 1600‐1300 B.C. : Monumental temple architecture flourished as distinct from the royal burials. This era also witnessed alien invasions. •
LAND OF EGYPT The E tian river was sub ect to unfailin l re ular and beni n floodin which left the de osits of rich black soil. This narrow fertile strip of valley was rigidly divided into fields, the boundaries of which had to be re‐established after every period of flooding. Things ran along Nile, mostly north and south, or at right angles to it. Orthogonal planning came naturally both in the field . . El Kahun exhibits a fine example of this wherein the standardized buildings are grouped into special zones – brick row houses for workers and craftsmen, often back to back, a quarter of large mansions for government officials, and an enclosed .
EL KAHUN, PLAN SHOWING WORKERS’ HOUSING TO THE LEFT, AND AMPLER GOVERNMENT
.
.
This linear character is evoked in royal burials and temples also which appear like a series of episodes along a predetermined path built over time. In contrast to this, as seen in Mesopotamian ziggurat complexes, a number of . The repetitive cycle of flooding of the river projected an eternal order. The belief that death was not a final thing but merely the passage to another region, was manifestation of the same. One’s tomb was like one’s house, built to last for e ern y o sus a n e ea res o a er e.
AMARNA (UPPER EGYPT), DIAGRAMMATIC PLAN OF LAYOUT, SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE NILE AND THE COURSE OF THE MAIN STREETS.
THE BURIAL OF KINGS EARLY BURIALS
At first, as a result of unification of Egypt, the Pharaoh was given a double burial; symbolically at Abydos, sacred site of Osiris and the actual body at Sa ara. At Saqqara, in addition to the Burial chambers, there several additional rooms holding king’s possessions. In later years, additional features were , alongside the tomb to carry the pharaoh across heaven.
ABOVE: CENOTAPH AT ABYDOS UPPER EGYPT ROYAL TUMULUS TOMB OF FIRST DYNASTY 3100 ‐ 2890 B.C. BELOW: SAQQARA (LOWER EGYPT), MORTUARY COMPLEX OF FIRST DYNASTY
ZOSER’S PYRAMID COMPLEX 11
The Saqqara tomb of Zoser, this is exceptionally not organized on the Egyptian principle of axial sequence. Designed by architect Imhotep, this was the first interpretation of brick, timber and plant forms of Egyptian architecture in hard medium of stone.
8 9
10 7
12
13 14
6
1. Enclosing wall . 3. Colonnade entry hall: with a lifted roof, earliest example of clear storey lighting 4. Grand court 5. Southern Mastaba and Offering room: a representation of royal cenotaph at Abydos, burial place of king’s entrails 6. Heb Sed court: for the ritual of Heb‐Sed, a celebration of the re‐consecration of his reign 7. House of the south . ouse o e nor 9. Court of the serdab 10. Serdab: room holding a seated statue of Zoser as a substitute for the king's body 12. Step pyramid 13. Sarcophagus chamber 14. Mastaba The body lay beneath the pyramid, in a granite sarcophagus chamber. Initially, a simple stone mastaba was placed over it which enlarged in the course of construction, into a six stepped pyramid.
4
5 3 1
SAQQARA, MORTUARY COMPLEX OF KING ZOSER, THIRD DYNASTY, ca. 2680 B.C.
e es re to monumenta ze t e tom an ma e t stan out a ove t e per meter o t e wa , s o v ous. stages also give a sense of climbing, of aspiration, an effect visually close to the Mesopotamian ziggurat.
x unequa
The king was identified with sun god Re, and the pyramid was a representation of the same. It probably stood for the mound of creation whose summit was the resting place of Sun. It was also thought of as the staircase of divine ascent which led the king to heaven.
RIGHT: STATUE OF KING ZOSER IN SERDAB LEFT: ZOSER COMPLEX‐ DUMMY CHAPEL, PYRAMID
THE PYRAMIDS OF GIZA
To etherealize the staircase and to make the royal tomb a worth symbol of Sun, after subsequent attempts, the true form of pyramid was arrived at. At Giza, there are three separate pyramid complexes, that of Mykerinos (the latest), Chefren and Cheops.
GIZA LOWER EGYPT THE PYRAMID GROUP THIRD DYNASTY, ca. 2570‐2500 B.C.
e pyram o e ren s nown or t e no e orm o p nx, a eon ne body with portrait ‐head of the king. At the east of the complex, in front of the Sphinx, stands temple of Harmakhis. Another valley temple stands next to it, glorified with statues of Chefren. From here, the body is transferred to the mortuary temple via a covered causeway that bridges the sphinx group and the pyramid. The mortuary temple begins with a T shaped hall followed by an open court. The innermost sanctum, that follows, is reserved for offerings for the sustenance of the body. This is then followed by the stone mountain of the pyramid where the body lays.
1 5
4
2
3
LEFT: GIZA, PLAN OF CHEFREN COMPLEX SHOWING THE MORTUARY TEMPLE (1), THE CAUSEWAY (2), THE VALLEY TEMPLE (3) AND THE SPHINX(4) WITH THE TEMPLE OF HARMAKHIS (5) BELOW: REMAINS OF THE SPHINX GROUP
THE TIME OF GODS After the term of three Giza kin s the immediate successor felt it necessar to enhance the ramid settin s at Abusir with separate sun temples in the honor of Re. The main feature of these temples were open court containing an obelisk mounted on a podium. ’ . now did not even hold the real tomb, which had moved elsewhere within the complex. The emphasis had shifted from the visual glorification of the ruler to the pious rites of the burial cult, and these were now dominated by the new chief deity of the national religion, sun‐god Amon. By the time of the New Kingdom, the pyramid was no longer a royal prerogative.
‐
‐
’
The entire scheme of Mentuhotep was oriented towards the newly started temple of Amon across the river, the modern Karnak. It takes the compromised supremacy of the pharaoh a little further, intending to satisfy the provincial aristocracy . , , . , her unusual and precarious position created an added urgency to demonstrate nearness to god.
THEBES PLAN SHOWING RELATIONSHIP TEMPLES AT DEIR EL‐BAHRI AND KARNAK
OF
The valle tem le has disa eared so has the unroofed causewa line with statues of kin . The com lex now consists of a large forecourt planted with trees, a terrace cut out of the rock, on which the mortuary temple stood, a narrow unit comprising of a court and a hypostyle hall. , ’ . long underground tunnel that started in the small court behind the temple. The pyramid was altogether absent from the queen’s complex.
DEIR EL‐BAHRI (UPPER EGYPT), THE MORTUARY TEMPLES OF MENTUHOTEP 2050 B.C. AND QUEEN HATSHEPSHUT 1500 B.C.
DEIR EL‐BAHRI, PLAN: THE MORTUARY TEMPLES OF MENTUHOTEP AND HATSHEPSHUT
The two temple compounds were linked with one another by an avenue of ram‐headed MONTU
KARNAK, TEMPLE OF AMON
and administrative buildings. They functioned like social and economic centers whose administrators exercised power in accor ance w t t e wea t o t e r o ngs.
LUXOR
KARNAK, TEMPLE OF AMON, SITE
The temples are endowed with multiple pylons and courts . The progression emerges as ‘a ritual path, from the most public spaces to the holy of holies, and a historic path, from the most recent reigns of the New Kingdom, the Ethiopian and Ptolemaic dynasties, to the oldest foundation that marked the sacred site’.
KARNAK, TEMPLE OF AMON, STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
The whole complex became active during the yearly mystic marriage of Amon and Mut, when a progression took place starting from Luxor, crossing Mut , crossing the pylons of the karnak precinct finally towards Amon temple.
‐ , LEADING TO THE AMON TEMPLE; LEFT: AMON TEMPLE, THE GREAT HYPOSTYLE HALL
ENDURANCE OF THE CULT The rimac of Amon was never successfull at the expense of pharaonic supremacy.
challen ed in the New Kin dom. The riesthood continued to row in stren th
The later period, around first millennium B.C., observed the succession of foreign dominations; a period of Ethiopian rule , . There were no significant modifications in the temple type; it continued to grow under the benevolent approval of alien rulers anxious to gain the support of the conservative Amon priesthood.