Changes

The rise of cities in the ancient Near East during the fourth millennium BC (4000-3000 BC) is a key event in the world's history of the world, as urban patterns that first arose there became patterns inherited in many societies, including in the West. Cities in the ancient Near East were the first to develop major temples, palaces, large largely urban dwelling areas, city walls, governments, and religious authorities that become features seen in later cities. Furthermore, these cities drew long-distance trade that created both great wealth for them but also and led to the rise of economic systems that created greater social inequality, characteristics that which we have also inherited.

Among the earliest regions , we see large-scale urbanism develop is in southern Mesopotamia, a region located in modern -day southern Iraq (Figure 1). Increasingly in the early fourth millennium BC, urban patterns began to form in southern Mesopotamia, including in places such as Eridu, located near ancient Ur, where one of the first large temples from this period is evident.<ref>For a discussion on the development of Eridu (pg. 135) see: Maisels, Charles Keith. 1999. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415096596/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0415096596&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=c6682a192fb0650be063c649cf853b25 The Emergence of Civilization: From Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture, Cities, and the State in the Near East]''. Repr. London: Routledge.</ref>

Perhaps, though, the first true truly great city that developed in this time frame was Uruk. This town grew to about 250 hectares in size in this period, which is about the size of downtown London, with two large temple districts that were devoted to major gods of the city (Figures 2 and 3).<ref>See (pg. 103) Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022614237X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=022614237X&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=6fb3eb342739f61d36ea83b58b29670c Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape]''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> This growth was largely fueled by Uruk’s abilities, through its connections along developing canals and riverine systems, to access trade from far away regions in Anatolia (modern Turkey), Iran, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere. As the region around Uruk was resource -poor, except for being agriculturally fertile, precious stones, timber, gold, and even stone building materials were needed from areas outside of southern Mesopotamia. Thus, trade and location were critical in why the city was able to grow.

The need for trade Trade was created based on a lack of resources, while location along canals and rivers facilitated the transport of goods. The fertile agricultural area was irrigated with canals, allowing a large population to develop. In essence, low -cost transport helped fuel trade growth. Once trade began to make this city wealthy, this then fueled growth further through positive feedback growth. In other words, growth in the city and its trade simply fueled more growth and trade as the city used resources to invest further invest and grow in other areas, expanding its reach.<ref>Lane, D., Pumain, D., Leeuw, S.v.d. 2009. Introduction, in: D. Lane, D. Pumain, S.v.d. Leeuw, and G. West (Eds.): <i>[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9048181798/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=9048181798&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=19197796d30f73ffb902faeec611ea05 Complexity Perspectives in Innovation and Social Change]</i>. Springer, Berlin, pp. 1-7.</ref> Additionally, other urban areas, as demonstrated through archaeological survey, seem to be growing in this period, suggesting the rise of urbanism began to spread in southern Mesopotamia.<ref> Bob Adams’ extensive surveys in southern Iraq had demonstrated how early urban centers developed. See: Adams, Robert McC. 1981. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226005445/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226005445&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=1a308caf084aa23b657bd6584ee2a5e6" Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates]''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> In fact, urbanism in the fourth millennium BC was not simply confined to southern Mesopotamia but also northerly regions.<ref>Oates, Joan, Augusta McMahon, Philip Karsgaard, Salam Al Quntar, and Jason Ur. 2007. ''Early Mesopotamian urbanism: A new view from the North''. Antiquity 81 (2007): 585–600.</ref>

Trade seems to have been so important for urban growth that by the late fourth millennium BC , we begin to see the expansion of urban colonies ' expansion to other regions. One example is the site of Habuba Kabira, a modern -day name for an ancient city that was build built in the late fourth millennium BC in northern Syria on the Euphrates River. Although writing was still scarce in this period, the city was clearly built by people from southern Mesopotamia, as all . All of its cultural remains , such as architecture, pottery, and other objects , indicate the people who settled there did not have cultural markers from the native populations in Syria. Rather, the site of Habuba Kabira represents a colony that was placed next to the Euphrates to control trade coming down to southern Mesopotamia.<ref>Habuba Kabira has been described as a near -exact footprint of southern Mesopotamian cities due to its material culture resembling items from that region's items. See: Strommenger, Eva. 1980. "Habuba Habiba Kabira: Eine Stadt Vor 5000 Jahren: Ausgrabungen Der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Am Euphrat in Habuba Kabira, Syrien." ''Sendschrift Der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 12''. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.</ref> Therefore, it was not simply passive trade that brought goods to southern Mesopotamia , but colonies were sometimes established to bring in raw materials.

Trade could have been crucial not just in attracting wealth to the urban areas such as Uruk but also and motivating warfare through competition among early cities and areas where early cities tried to expand for trade or wealth access.<ref>Hamblin, William James. 2006. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000OT7W4E/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000OT7W4E&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=6c31d09452318b117ef698781be3982c Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC: Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History: Warfare and History]''. London ; New York: Routledge.</ref> We begin to see art showing scenes of war and war leaders that may reflect a new type of competition emerging among early urban centers.<ref>See Baizerman, Michael. 2015. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1504936116/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1504936116&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=2cc2715915a145719ef73e6632ce13dd Dawn and Sunset: A Tale of the Oldest Cities in the Near East]''.</ref> This likely also reflects the rise of kings and early rulers who began to lead the new cities, while war may have led to people fleeing to cities in greater numbers for protection.

Perhaps not as frequently discussed, but with the rise of cities , we also see the rise of social inequality.<ref>For a discussion on the Uruk period's material culture of the Uruk period and how it could represent social complexity and inequality , see: Postgate, John Nicholas. 2004. ''Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East''. Reprinted. ''Iraq Archaeological Reports 5''. Cambridge: Univ. Press.</ref> In earlier periods, such as the Neolithic in the 6th millennium BC, we see much of the ancient Near East displaying small villages that had with houses relatively equal in size to each other. In the fourth millennium BC, as cities began to rise, we now see very different types of structures. Large complexes that could be palaces or temples arouse in large urban areas, which are now far larger than typical houses. The art begins to depict what appears to be a strong man or leader figure that likely had different powers or what amounts to as king-like aspects, such as leading war campaigns or having the authority to rule.

This difference in architecture and depictions of kings indicates that increased wealth to cities did not benefit everyone equally but became more concentrated toward fewer individuals. This increasingly powerful class needed laborer laborers to serve them. This drive for labor helped to motivate people to the growing urban centers, in addition to and warfare and trade that also likely motivated a greater concentration of people in smaller spaces. This Therefore, this differential wealth and power, therefore, led to urban communities where social inequality becomes ingrained through the development of local religious authorities and dynasties that passed on the differences in wealth and power to succeeding generations. What this This effectively did was setup set up a system where it was socially acceptable to pass power and wealth down hereditary lines, perpetuating greater inequality in future generations.<ref>For a discussion on perpetuating social inequality through inheritance see: D’Souza, V. 1981. ''[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007F6SJVY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B007F6SJVY&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=7d8eb9554c0ebc898fec64f25e402b23 Inequality and Its Perpetuation: A Theory of Social Stratification]''. Manohar: New Delhi.</ref>

What we see from this brief overview is that urbanism was not driven by a natural processdid not drive urbanism. In fact, this process took several millennia after the invention of agriculture, which made making it possible to settle in one region. Urbanism simply became the predominant social form through a complex set of interactions that led to increased trade wealth concentrating into cities with access to key trade routes but also and motivation to expand trade networks as they often lacked raw resources. Warfare could have resulted from increased trade competition, which could have forced forcing more people to seek protection in the cities. Social inequality was a byproduct but also and likely motivated the greater population to cities as wealth and power helped to concentrate people.