Home > Uncategorized > the barrow and the tent

the barrow and the tent

In my efforts to find the E=MC2 of religious architecture, I’m now playing with the idea that the whole shebang can be boiled down to two ur-forms: though they are in some ways misleading, I call these the barrow – the hemispherical burial mound; and the tent – the temporary enclosure set aside for worship.

Both are truly ancient – barrows are such an obvious side-effect of burial that they occur in a great many cultures, going back several millennia BC; while all the earliest axial temples, whether in Egypt, or Mesopotamia, or much later in Greece or India, demonstrate architectural motifs clearly derived from earlier structures made of temporary materials. More to the point these two ur-ideas embody the great themes that unite religious buildings of all kinds.

The barrow, from this point of view, is there to service the practical need for burial, the very act of which suggests this monumental form: an earth mound over a body, neatened up. By its function it stands as a cipher for the questions of the unknown, of the spirit world, whether that refers to the dead or to the divine, which is one chief uniting theme of all religion. And by taking on a geometrically simple form, and not requiring an interior, and being imbued by its function with a given culture’s ideas about invisible worlds, afterlifes, etc, it becomes an early carrier of another key quality of religious architecture: that embodies meaning. And of course symbolic forms in the landscape can attract a huge range of such meanings, and often symbolically embody landscape forms in their own right.

The tent, by turn, is there to service the practical need to provide a venue for ritual, a shelter for activity, a setting-aside of a place so that certain things can be done within it. This, then, does have an interior, and its form reflects the nature of a given faith’s ritual: for example, axialplaces of worship are popular because most rituals involve some demarcation between congregation/supplicants/worshippers and idol/idea/priesthood (or whatever). The tent/axial enclosure then stands for the liturgical, performative, living, human aspects of religious activity; and as it develops it is likely to acquire an architecturally theatrical aspect, to be a stage set — simple or elaborate, manipulating the emotions or passively permitting silent communion – reflective of a given culture’s ideas about worship itself.

From these two ideas can be developed all the great variety of religious buildings, including the formal building blocks such as the ‘man made mountain’, ‘the hall’, etc that I’ve posited in an earlier post (and in my forthcoming book). Many of the formal details of religious architecture derive from them, too. And rather neatly, they are summed up in the two buildings which, as again I’ve posted before, can be regarded as the oldest religious building-types on the planet still to be in use: the stupa, Buddhist but originating as a barrow, and carrying with it much of the cosmology of an ancient and polytheistic/early Hindu India, influential across central and eastern Eurasia; and the synagogue, Jewish and thus by definition monotheistic, but stretching back to the Temple and before it to the Tabernacle, the dwelling place of God for the ancient Hebrews, one of the root buildings (though here the earlier and grander architecture of the pagan middle east is important, too) of the middle-eastern and western traditions: the original tent in the desert.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: