On this page you will discover construction materials and methods employed by

the first complex society in the world, the Mesopotamians! I will discuss several
topics including mud-brick construction, private residences, architectual
features, urband and rural layout, and I will then examine how housing and
construction practices can identify a complex society. Housing and construction
may sound like a boring topic, but what would life be like without a place to live,
work, or pray? Construction supports may aspects of a society including a stable
infrastructure and economic growth. Come and explore the housing and
construction of ancient Mesopotamia with me!

Mud-brick Construction
Construction practices in ancient Mesopotamia made great use of mud-brick in
both private and public structures. The extensive use of mud-brick is due to the
lack of other construction resources in the region such as stone or timber. The
bricks would have been tempered with grass or dung, shaped into molds, and
then allowed to dry in the sun. Mud-bricks proved to be a cheap and
inexhaustible construction material for the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia.
Sometimes bricks were fired to improve their durability and were especially
used in foundations and lower parts of walls in order to protect against flooding.
Fired bricks were not used in Mesopotamia until the Uruk period. Firing was not
a very common practice as wood for the fire would have been imported and thus
the firing process would have been an expensive endeavor. The bricks were
assembled into walls using mud to cement them together. The walls were then
covered in a thick mud plaster that worked to both reflect light and to further
cement the wall in place.[6] The figure to the left illustrates the use of tar as an
adhesive in a public structure within the Ur site. Such an adhesive would have
been reserved for important structures and not used in residential areas.
(Muhsen).

The first use of mud-brick appeared in a ninth-millennium site in northern

Mesopotamia called Nemrik. These bricks were various sized blocks of packed
clay and were assembled into walls. By the eighth millennium, sites appear
across Mesopotamia with cigar-shaped, dried bricks that were most likely
shaped by hand. Molded bricks first made their appearance in the Ubaid I period
and exploded into all of the regions of Mesopotamia.[2]

The manufacturing of mud-bricks followed a seasonal pattern with May-June

being the time for packing and molding the bricks. This was the period after the
spring rainy season, so water would have been plentiful. The drying period
began immediately after, taking advantage of the dry summer months. Building
started in late July or August when the ground had dried enough to begin laying
foundations. The laying of bricks for certain public structures and temples
included ritual ceremonies dedicated to a brick god and other lesser gods. This was
practiced to ensure favorable conditions from the creation of the first brick to the
completion of the structure. [2]

Private Residences

The figure to left (No. 3 Gay Street) illustrates a typical private residence
uncovered at the Ur site by Sir Leonard Woolley. The design is similar to
many in this region with the courtyard located in the center of the structure
and several rooms along the outside. The walls of many of the residences in
Mesopotamia were thick and seemingly capable of supporting a second story,
an idea that Woolley subscribed to. The second story is also thought to have
been the area that the family occupied, leaving the ground floor as an area for
public or social activities. On the ground floor, there was usually a room near
the rear of the residence thought to have been a reception area for guests that
is similar to the liwanthat is a characteristic feature of modern homes in the
Middle East. Near the liwan there would usually have been a domestic chapel.
This was more often the largest room in the house and was paved with fired
mud-brick which may suggest that the roof was open in this room. An altar
would have been at one end with a chimney behind it for the burning of
incense. The kitchen and lavatory would also have been located on the ground
floor and sometimes there would have been a spare bedroom or work area as
well.At the entrance of the house, there was usually a lobby room with a drain,
which was possibly used for washing of the feet before entering the house. Two
N other drains would have been located in the lavatory and in the center of the
o courtyard. The drain in the courtyard may indicate that the roof sloped in
.
3 towards the center of the house, thus allowing the rain water to effectively
drain. [6] 
G
a
y

S
t
r
e
e
t
Architectural Feature

Several architectural features characterized Mesopotamian housing structures.

One of the most notable of these is the arched doorway for which they are
credited with inventing. As you can see in the picture above, the arch allowed
for the creation of spans of space without the need for wooden beams or large
stone for support. Since both wood and stone were not found natively in
southern Mesopotamia, the arch was a very important development for
Mesopotamian architecture.[6]

Another interesting feature is the drains that have been found in several housing
structures in Mesopotamia, including the one in the figure to the right located in
the city of Ur. These drains helped to prevent rain water from backing up inside
the structures, which were quite vulnerable to water damage. They also allowed
for the placement of a lavatory within the main structure of the house. [5] Note
also in this picture the fired mud-brick floor. This type of flooring was usually
implemented on exposed surfaces or those that would otherwise suffer water
The third architectural feature I would like to mention is the door jam. These were
preferably made of stone, but dried clay was also used as shown in the picture to the
right. These were heavy objects with a cupped center for supporting a door frame that
pivoted on the bottom axis.[2] Several of these, both stone and clay, can be found in
residences and public buildings in Ur. The stone door jams were more often found in
temples and other public structures, while the clay door jams were found in private
houses.(Muhsen) 

Urban Housing and City Layout

Private housing within southern Mesopotamian cities was located outside of
the temenos area which encompassed the Ziggurat complex, temples and other
public buildings. As you can see in the map of the city of Ur, the residential
zones (in purple) are located outside of the temenos, with one to the southeast
and one to the southwest. The figure below shows a close up aerial view of the
residential area in the southeast corner of Ur. It is evident in this picture that the
residential area was not planned and has several irregular groupings of
structures with a few main roads and many narrow streets and blind alleys. The
narrow irregular streets may have worked to the peoples’ advantage by
providing shade and keeping the clustered houses cool.[6]
Through time, residences would be dismantled and rebuilt on top of the rising
refuse that accumulated in the streets. Structures would literally be engulfed in
trash as the level of the streets rose year after year. Typically, the threshold
would be built up until the doorway became uncomfortably small. At this point,
the structure would be partially dismantled and rebuilt using the old walls as a
foundation. This process gradually elevated the cities upon mounds called
‘tells’. 
Shops and public chapels were located in the residential zones as well. Shops are
colored in purple in the map to the left while the chapels are colored red. A majority
of the shops have a similar construction with a small room at the entrance and several
larger rooms in the rear of the structure. Sir Leonard Woolley also suggested that they
may have had low windows facing the street for the display of products much like
current shops in the region today. Several shops may have also been converted from
pre-existing residential structures. Many of these shops were found to be connected to
adjacent residences by small passage ways. The owners of the shops most likely
owned the residences as well, and linked them together for convenience.[6]

The public chapels are found near big intersections within the residential areas. They
can be identified by grand entrances with terracotta demons guarding the entrance and
they tend to sit at a higher level than the surrounding structures. Within the chapels
there may be several rooms, but all contained a courtyard and a small shrine room. An
altar would stand at the entrance of the courtyard and was supposedly used for burnt
offerings. Hollowed-out pedestals also stood in the courtyard for libations or liquid
offerings. [6]

Rural Housing Village Layout

Not much attention has been paid to rural Mesopotamia at it lies in the shadow
of the larger city-states. Here, I will discuss an early rural site in Hassuna, Iraq
and a later site at Tell al-Raqa’i in Syria. Although these sites do not occupy
southern Mesopotamia, I believe that they will shed light on rural sites that have
been previously ignored in the southern region. 

In the figure to the right, you will see a reconstruction of a residential compound
from the Hassuna site. The structure has several rooms for living and storage as
well as an enclosed yard in the rear. Each of the rooms is extremely bare in the
way of fixtures that would identify what the room was used as. One
interpretation is that theses structures were designed to be flexible and easily
changed in the event of population growth or decline. These buildings would be
grouped together around an open area paved with plaster. There is also evidence
of communal storage and a stone wall surrounding the village. Even in this early
rural village, seeds of planning and complex group behaviors can be observed. 
The site of Tell al-Raqa’i dates as early as 2800 BCE at its lowest levels. This
settlement contains a large round building surrounded by clusters of residential
structures. The round building has many platforms and silos within its incredibly thick
mud-brick walls. It seems that this building served a communal purpose for the
storing of grain and other crops. An American archaeologist, Glen Schwartz, observed
that the population size was far smaller than the amount of people that the grain in the
silo structure could support. Other sites similar to Tell al-Raqa’i have been identified
within the same region. The conclusion is that site such as these were part of a
network of villages that supported a larger city-state. This would indicate the
existence of a complex centralized plan stemming from the city-state.[4]

Evidence of Complexity

In this webpage, I have discussed construction methods, housing practices,

and layouts in urban and rural settings. I have shown material culture in the
form of buildings and architectural features of private residences and minor
public structures. The question now to ask is what does all of this mean to
state complexity? The answer that I offer is infrastructure, the economics of
construction, and the evolution of building practices. 

The development of a strong and flexible infrastructure supports a growing and

complex state. Within the cities, there is evidence for constant rebuilding of
structures, both residences and shops, in order to improve their usability. A good
infrastructure is constantly improving structures essential to the welfare of its citizens
and economy. By continuing to reinvent housing and commercial structures, cities
developed a stable infrastructure that allowed population growth and increased
economic activity. A uniform and centrally controlled infrastructure is also observed
in rural areas as well. Control and organization of grain production is essential to a
growing urban center. The site of Tell al-Raqa'i and neighboring sites clearly illustrate
a centralized and organized control of grain.

The construction process itself is an economic activity. The construction industry

provides jobs, tradable commodities such as brick, and supports population growth.
When the state sponsors construction projects such building a temple, jobs are created
and labors will come to the city to work, live, and spend money. This influx of people
and money create more economic activity which supports city growth. Economic
activity also results with the building of shops and new houses. Obviously building a
structure will cost money and both supplies and labor will be bought in most cases.
Economic growth and construction growth have always gone hand in hand in
communities across the world. 
Finally, I would like to point to the evolution of building practices as evidence of
complexity. In earlier periods of Mesopotamian history, construction materials, such
as packed clay, were not used effectively and could not support a growing urban
metropolis. As dried mud-brick and then fired mud-brick appeared, structures such as
ziggurats, temples, and multiple storied houses were now possible to construct.
Complex societies cannot exist without the materials needed to support city-building .