Arguably, the first cities emerged in the end of the fourth millennium BC in Mesopotamia.

Analyse the process of urbanization in Mesopotamia, and discuss the technological, cultural

and social innovations which took place.

Fiona MacColl

12/06/2015

The view that the first cities emerged in the end of the fourth millennium BC in Mesopotamia is

based primarily upon their size, with Uruk and Tell Brak exceeding one hundred hectares (Ur, 2014, p.249).

However, size is not the only way of defining a city. The earlier Ubaid period, while not having

large settlements, did have urban features such as centralization, monumental architecture at Eridu

and Gawra, and container sealings found at Gawra, suggesting 'some form of central collection and

redistribution' (Oates, 1993, p.408). There are also different theories for the process of urbanization,

ranging from Clark and Blake's model of aggrandizers who pursue prestige, using 'a strategy of

competitive generosity' (Clark and Blake, 1994, p.21), to Jacobs' view that cities resulted from long-

distance trade in raw materials, leading only later to agriculture (Mieroop, 1997, p.25).

This essay will compare Adam's Redistributive and Schloen's Patrimonial Household models, to

show that they need not be mutually exclusive, and that a better understanding of urbanization may

involve aspects of several models. Despite the different views, there is a general, though not

necessarily universal, consensus regarding the innovations resulting from urbanization.

In his Redistributive Model, Adams identifies three stages in the process of urbanization. Firstly,

improvements in agriculture, such as irrigation, led to surplus food production (Knapp, 1988, p.28),

especially in cereals. That the Mesopotamian diet was primarily cereals is attested by the many

terms for grain in the native language (Mieroop, 1997, p.144). However, irrigation did exist on a

smaller scale during the earlier Ubaid period (Huot, 1989). One benefit of irrigation was the use of

longer furrows, enabling larger operations (Thomas, 2012, p.221). These developments led to

population growth, with the largest towns containing up to fifty thousand people in the Uruk period

(Thomas, 2012, p.214) as people immigrated into the Uruk area (Ur, 2014, p.253).

Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that families would produce more food than needed for their

subsistence. Rather, food surplus may have resulted from the existence of a higher authority, or

from the desire for a less restricted diet or for products that could not be found in the local area

(Mieroop, 1997, p.29). A lack of essential materials and the desire for prestige goods encouraged

trade (Knapp, 1988, p.42), with southern Mesopotamia exporting foodstuffs, textiles and processed

goods. However, this does not mean that there was no prior trade. In the Halaf and Samarra

cultures, trade was conducted with semi-nomadic herders (Thomas, 2012, p.219).

Secondly, variations in wealth, resulting from access to means of production, and occupations such

as farming, trade and administration led to increased social inequality (Mieroop, 1997, p.28). But

urbanism benefitted mainly a few elite households, rather than society in general (Ur, 2014, p.254).

These elite households comprise Adam's third stage of urbanism; the priesthood who controlled the

central administration needed for trade. Thus, the main function of the temple was one of economic

redistribution. As the temples were not involved in food production, they depended upon rural

producers for their needs as evidenced by the Warka vase from Uruk which depicts naked men

carrying jars of produce to the goddess Inanna. Before her stands the city's ruler who, being the

intermediary between the people and the goddess, is depicted as larger than his men and dressed in

ceremonial robes.

Fig. 1. Warka vase

(Roaf, 1991, p.61)

Religious ideology may have been used by the priesthood to extract produce in the form of tribute

from rural producers (Mieroop, 1997, p.32). The size of monumental temple complexes in the Uruk

period suggests social inequality, with the priesthood holding the greatest wealth and power.

In contrast, Schloen's Patrimonial Household model depicts the household as a metaphor used at

different scales in society (Schloen 2001, p.1). Schloen claims that urbanism disadvantaged many

agriculturists through taxation, and the need to travel greater distances to and from fields. In fact,

dispersed villages may have been a more efficient method (Ur, 2014, p.249). The reason that people

accepted hierarchy and inequality was because the household was a structure they were familiar

with. Inequality existed within a family, so it was accepted within the larger family of the city.

Sumerian or Akkadian cuneiform texts omit the word, state (Emberling 2003, p.261). Also the term

office does not exist even though administrative roles did exist. Such linguistic evidence may

support the view that an abstract state did not exist in the earlier Uruk period either as concepts

rarely develop in isolation but are based upon earlier held attitudes and beliefs. Thus, in the Uruk

period, officials may have held their positions 'by virtue of kinship proximity to elites' (Ur, 2014,

p.255).

Weber claims that cities were run as royal households, led by a patrimonial ruler whose followers

(oikoi) lived to satisfy their ruler's wants (Ur, 2014, p.255), in the same way that lesser members of

a family obeyed the patrimonial head. So, familiarity with the patrimonial household led to an

acceptance of inequality in the state. In fact, the Sumerian word for household includes both small

families and large socio-economic units including owners, managers, workers, animals, buildings

and pastureland (Ur, 2014, p.256). Thus, in a city, the ruler was master of his household in the same

way that a patriarch was master of his house. The only difference was one of degree.

Some assemblies in ancient cities suggest consensual decision-making, rather than a hierarchical

structure though currently little is known about their structure and operation. However, it could be

argued that in the early second millennium, these were more concerned with debate and negotiation

than decision-making (Ur, 2014, p.256).

Evidence of kinship within early cities is seen in the ration lists that show permanent 'employees'

grouped by kinship (Ur, 2014, p.257). In Nippur, inscriptions concerning the house of Ur-Meme

who were temple administrators and governors show a chronological distribution of office titles,

suggesting that 'officials' were descendants of the chief administrator (Garfinkle & Johnson, 2008,

p.59). Also, tablets from Umma describe the transfer of the office of chief of the granary from

ARAD(-mu) to his son, Sara-izu, and the transfer of the office of archivist from Ur-Sara to his son,

Ur-Nungal (Dahl & Hebenstreit, 2007, pp.43 and 48.) Although these date from the later Ur III

period, it is possible that the administration of early cities was similar to this and was based upon a

kinship structure.

Architectural evidence to support the patriarchal model is seen in Ubaid houses. These were

tripartite, comprising a central hallway with a room on either side, often forming a 'T'-shape.

Fig.2. Tripartite Ubaid houses

(Ur, 2014, p.259)

Temples often have the same shape as residential houses, supporting the view that temples may

have been seen as Houses of the Deity. The domestic household provided the model for socio-

economic relations that were copied and 'ritualized...on a monumental scale.' (Wengrow 1998,

p.792). Temples originally may have been the prestige homes of patriarchs and their immediate

family but in time, they became that of political elites (Ur, 2014, p.262).

Thus, acceptance of class inequality resulted from familiarity with the household structure and the

idea of a ruling patriarch. As the household existed to advance its own interests, less important

households in early cities would support larger elite households 'in matters of taxation, corvee,

labour and warfare' (Ur, 2014, p.262).

The above two theories need not be mutually exclusive. Adams' model based on increasing social

stratification can fit with Schloen's Patrimonial Household model with members of the family closer

to the Patriarch being given more importance within the 'household.' Also, Schloen's model still

requires agriculture and trade in order to promote the well-being of the family. However, despite

their differences, the two models agree regarding the innovations resulting from urbanization.

Urbanization resulted in many innovations including, but not limited to, cylinder seals (Porada,

1993), wheel-made pottery (Knapp, 1988, p.46), mass production evidenced by the poorer quality

of bevelled-rim bowls in contrast to the delicate pottery of the Ubaid period (Leick, 2001, pp.35-

36), metalworking using lost-wax casting (Hunt, 1980, pp.63-65), and even war which may have

resulted from greater prosperity, boundary disputes and the need for raw goods within early cities

(Knapp, 1988, p.41).

Perhaps the greatest innovation was writing which appeared c.3500 BC (Knapp, 1988, p.11). In the

Eanna mound, clay tokens bearing simple designs that may have represented different commodities

of exchange first appear in layer xviii, during the earlier Ubaid period (Leick, 2001, p.35). The

geometric forms are mostly symbolic and unrelated to the shapes of the items they represent. Thus,

they can be seen as the precursor to writing.

Figure 3. Clay Tokens

(Nguyen, 2009)

During the Uruk period, an increase in trade resulted in new forms appearing (Knapp, 1988, p.56).

Cones represented numbers, with a small cone standing for one, and a large cone standing for sixty.

A sheep was represented by a disc with an incised cross (Schmandt-Besserat, 1979, p.20), while an

ear of wheat was a herringbone pattern (Schmandt-Besserat, 1979, p.22).

Figure 4 - Sheep and Wheat Tokens

(Schmandt-Besserat, 1979)

Holes in the tokens suggest that they may have been tied together for transportation (Knapp, 2988,

p.56), and this led to the use of a spherical clay envelope called a bulla.

Figure 5. Tokens and Bulla

(Gunther and Ludwig, 1994)

Unfortunately, the tokens could not be seen within the bulla without destroying the container so the

bulla was impressed with the number and shape of the tokens inside, leading over time to the idea

that only the representative symbols were actually needed. Thus, the token and bulla system led to

writing (Knapp, 1988, pp.56-57) which first appeared in the form of pictographs, c.3100 BC, during

the Late Uruk phase (Knapp, 1988, p.46).

Figure 6. Sumerian pictograph

(Reid, 2011)

Such developments probably resulted from increasing trade, craft production in workshops, and a

growing temple-based bureaucracy (Schmandt-Besserat, 1979, p.19).

Within cities, the most visible innovation was surely the monumental architecture of temples

(Knapp, 1988, p.40). This provided the populace with clear evidence of the growing importance of

their community. While temples had existed in the Ubaid period, archaeologists discovered in Uruk

monumental structures constructed and decorated on a much grander scale, suggesting increased

social stratification. In addition, new building techniques included waterproofing by adding a layer

of bitumen (Leick, 2001, p.36), seen in the Stone Cone Temple (level vi, Eanna mound, c.3500-

3200 BC) (Charvat, 2013, p.114). Buttresses were used to strengthen walls (Frankfort, 1954, p.18)

though these are also evident in Ubaid structures, and clay cones were used in mosaic wall

decorations (Leick, 2001, p.35) in geometrical patterns reminiscent of textiles, perhaps suggesting

wall hangings.

Figure 7 - Stone-Cone Temple Mosaics

(BrokenSphere, 2004)

The creation of monumental architecture was very labour-intensive. Limestone had to be

transported from quarries or treated to produce concrete. The millions of stone cones used in the

mosaics were also very time-consuming to produce (Leick, 2001, p.40), suggesting the importance

of such structures as a focal point of the cities.

Innovations were not, however, limited to cities. In the rural hinterlands that supported the cities,

one such innovation was the plow which let people create the food surplus needed to support an

increasing population. Also, fewer people were needed to produce food. Since food production

required less labour and fewer labourers, people could branch out into other craft areas. Evidence of

plows is seen on cylinder seals (Faiella, 2006, p.30). However, the plow was not a new innovation

but an improvement on an earlier form, due to new metalworking technologies. While earlier plows

were made of wood, later ones had metal-pointed ardshares (Potts, 1994, pp.163-4). In the third

millennium BC, a further development created the seeder plow which had a funnel attached,

enabling seeds to be dropped in place (Faiella, 2006, p.30). Evidence for seeder plows can be seen

in Mesopotamian and Kassite glyptic art.

Fig. 8. Seeder Plow representations(Potts, 1997, p.78)

The innovations linked to urbanization are many and of considerable importance, although it could

be argued that the greatest innovation of ancient Mesopotamia is, in fact, urbanization itself,

without which later city-states and empires could not have developed.

In conclusion, a better understanding of the process of urbanization in Mesopotamia may involve

aspects of several theories. Adams' model based on increasing social stratification can fit with

Schloen's Patrimonial Household model as noted above. Also, Clark and Blake's aggrandizer could

be the patriarch, promoting his own (and therefore his family's) self-interest. Agriculture and trade

as the foundation for urbanization fit almost every model, and Wheatley's claim (1971, p.24) that

religion may have developed before cities does not necessarily deny Schloen's model. However,

despite the many different theories for the process of urbanization, what most models appear to

agree on are the technological, cultural and social innovations which are considerable. But perhaps

the greatest innovation of all is urbanization itself, without which modern societies could not have

developed.

Bibliography

CHARVAT, P., 2013. The Birth of the State; Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China. Prague:

Karolinum Press.

CLARK, J. E. & BLAKE, M., 1994. The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the

Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. Factional Competition and Political

Development in the New World, pp.17-30.

DAHL, J. L & HEBENSTREIT, L. F., 2007. 17 Ur III Texts in a Private Collection in Paris. Revue

d'Assyriologie et d'archeologie orientale [online], 101, pp.35-49. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23281271 [Accessed on 28/05/2015].

EMBERLING, G., 2003. Urban Social Transformations and the Problem of the "First City", New

Research from Mesopotamia. The Social Construction of Ancient Cities, pp.254-268.

FAIELLA, G., 2006. The Technology of Mesopotamia. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

FRANKFORT, H., 1954. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed (1996). USA: Yale

University Press.

GARFINKLE, S. J. & JOHNSON, J. C., 2008. The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia:

Studies in Ur III Administration. In Proceedings of the First and Second Ur III Workshops at the

49th and 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London, July 10, 2003 and Chicago, July

19, 2005. Spain: Estilo Estregraf Impresores, S. L.

HUOT, J. -L., 1989. Ubaidian Villages of Lower Mesopotamia. Permanence and Evolution from

Ubaid 0 to Ubaid 4 as Seen from Tell el Oueili. Upon This Foundation; The Ubaid Reconsidered,

pp.19-42. (s.l.): Museum Tusculanum Press

HUNT, L. B., 1980. The Long History of Lost Wax Casting. Gold Bulletin, 13 (2), pp.63-79.

KNAPP, A. B., 1988. The History and Culture of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt. California:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

LEICK, G., 2001. Mesopotamia, the Invention of the City. London: The Penguin Press.

MIEROOP, M. VD., 1997. The Origins and Characters of the Mesopotamian City. In: The Ancient

Mesopotamian City. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.23-42.

NICHOLAS, I. M., 1987. The Function of Bevelled-Rim Bowls; a Case Study at the TUV Mound,

Tal-E Malyan, Iran. Paléorient, 13 (2), pp.61-72.

OATES, J., 1993. Trade and Power in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC: New Evidence from

Northern Mesopotamia. World Archaeology [online], 24 (3), pp. 403-422. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/124716. [Accessed on 07/05/2015].

PORADA, E., 1993. Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near

East, Fourth to First Millennium B.C. The Art Bulletin, 75 (4), pp.563-582. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045984. [Accessed: 06/05/2015].

POTTS, D. T., 1994. Contributions to the Agrarian History of Eastern Arabia I. Implements and

Cultivation Techniques. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 5 (3), pp.158-168.

SCHLOEN, J. D., 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit

and the Ancient Near East. USA: Harvard Semitic Museum Publications.

SCHMANDT-BESSERAT, D., 1979. An Archaic Recording System in the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr

Period. American Journal of Archaeology, 83 (1), pp.19-48. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/504234. [Accessed on 16/05/2015].

THOMAS, A. R., 2012. Urbanization Before Cities: Lessons for Social Theory from the Evolution

of Cities. American Sociological Association, 18 (2), pp.211-235.

UR, J., 2014. Households and the Emergence of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal, 24. Available at:

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S095977431400047X [Accessed on 9/05/2015].

WENGROW, D., 1998. The changing face of clay: continuity and change in the transition from

village to urban life in the Near East. Antiquity, 72 (278), pp.783-795. Available at:

http://journals.cambridge.org.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/download.php?file=%2FAQY

%2FAQY72_278%2FS0003598X00087378a.pdf&code=6f0a15953c5ec7f0e051a6bcc1b17fc3

[Accessed on 16/05/2015].

WHEATLEY, P., 1971. The Pivot of the Four Quarters. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.

IMAGES

Figure 1 - Warka vase

ROAF, M., 1991. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. (s.l.): Facts on File

Inc., p.61.

Figure 2 - Ubaid Tripartite House

UR, J., 2014. Households and the Emergence of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal [online], 24, p.259. Available at:

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S095977431400047X [Accessed on 9/05/2015].

Figure 3 - Clay tokens

NGUYEN, M., 2009. At: Louvre Museum (Department of Near Eastern Antiquities). Accession

number Sb 4937, Sb 4938, Sb 4942, etc.

Figure 4 - Sheep and Wheat Tokens

SCHMANDT-BESSERAT, D., 1979. An Archaic Recording System in the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr

Period. American Journal of Archaeology, 83 (1), pp.19-48. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/504234. [Accessed on 16/05/2015].

Figure 5 - Tokens and Bulla

GUNTHER, H. & LUDWIG, O., 1994. Schrift und Schriftlichkeit, (I). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Figure 6 - Sumerian Pictograph

REID, L., 2011. Louvre, Department of Near Eastern Antiquities. Available at:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/leonandloisphotos/5985135503/ [Accessed on 16/05/2015].

Figure 7 - Stone-Cone Temple Mosaics

BrokenSphere (2004), At: Pergamon Museum. Available at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone-Cone_Temple_mosaics,_Pergamon_Museum.JPG

[Accessed on: 16/05/2015].

Figure 8 - Seeder Plow representations

POTTS, D. T., 1997, Mesopotamian Civilization, the Material Foundations. London: The Athlone

Press, pp.70-78.