{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01680672268907563, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.828025477707007, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Palaces

This chapter identifies a list of ancient Near Eastern palaces that emerge as canonical across scholarly literature. The result is rather haphazard, with a palace’s canonical status being dependent on archaeological discovery and preservation rather than on the building’s ancient historical or architectural significance. Indeed, the study of ancient Near Eastern palaces has been dominated by a morphological approach, exemplified by the German tradition of Formengeschichte (“history of form”). Ignoring the specificities of particular times and places, this approach uses general typologies that create grand narratives of a timeless Oriental architecture. This approach has allowed an implicit set of theoretical and methodological assumptions to dominate scholarly discourse on ancient Near Eastern palaces. In response, after tracing the formation of the canon of palaces, this chapter questions the relevance of the resulting canon and ponders potential alternative approaches to ancient Near Eastern royal architecture.