To approach the study of the cities of the Second Urban Revolution (SUR), it is helpful first to review approaches to studying cities in archaeology, generally. The study of the city and the “urban revolution” in archaeology is always implicitly or explicitly tied to V. Gordon Childe’s “The Urban Revolution” and his checklist of what makes a city and an urban society (Childe 1950). His ten criteria – large size, craft specialization, surplus creation, monumental public architecture, a ruling class, sciences, writing, arts, long distance trade and a community based on residence instead of kinship – form the basis of most attempts to identify cities. While any one criterion may be disputed or discarded, as a whole he paints a clear picture of what differentiates urban society.
Childe’s criteria focused on defining and recognizing cities and urban societies
archaeologically. Earlier attempts to analyze the development of cities identified various
‘phases’ of societal development but lacked the archaeological data to fully elaborate these theories (Smith 2009). His work opened the door for exploring the variety of shapes and forms that cities can take and for establishing a basis for cross-cultural comparison.
Cross-cultural comparison has been invaluable in establishing characteristics of cities that are universal, and those that are indicative of a broader social or political structure within society (Adams 1966, Charlton and Nichols 1997, Trigger 2003, Smith 2011, 2012, Smith and Peregrine 2012).
Childe’s list of criteria focused on “urban functions” rather than “urban structural features” (Renfrew 2008:47). While functions are what make a place urban (i.e., what make a city a city), structural features are the archaeologically recoverable aspect of urban functions; thus the gap between functions and structures must be bridged. As Smith (2009) discusses, Childe’s criteria are part of a network analysis of ancient cities with interlocking and overlapping functions.
Trigger (1972, 2003) also developed a functional definition of cities. He argued that a “key identifier of an urban centre is that it performs specialized functions relative to a broader hinterland” (Trigger 2003:120). Specialized functions of cities include political and administrative activities, religious activities, art and writing, trade-related activities, and specialized craft production (Trigger 2003). Again, these activities mirror Childe’s criteria, but place them in a broader context. Functional definitions often
highlight the urban in opposition to the rural, with greater specialization and a reliance on a rural hinterland (primarily in the form of agricultural production).
Marcus and Sabloff (2008) emphasize the diversity of cities, moving away from a definition of “the city” toward a more complex explication of “a city” that recognizes the variety of types of cities. Their elements of urbanism include heterogeneity in the urban population, diverse buildings and personnel, building density, a monumental ‘core’ of buildings, a maximum building height at the center of a city, a central focus
(administrative or religious), and organizational features such as neighborhoods, plazas, and street layouts (Marcus and Sabloff 2008:13). Their criteria focus on archaeologically recognizable structures and move away from functional definitions in relation to broader
landscapes.
The study of cities has often focused on central institutions such as palaces and temples. As major seats of power in ancient cities, these institutions are reasonable places to begin to understand the structure, form, and meaning of cities. As Childe and Trigger’s definitions show, however, it is necessary to move beyond the center of centers, as it were, to examine the full variety of urban experiences. Although temples and palaces may be locations of major organizational aspects of urban society, urban functions are not limited to the central parts of cities and other important urban functions (such as craft specialization) take place in various locations. Locating urban functions and
understanding their relationships build understanding of ancient society and its organization.
Because the current study is concerned not with recognizing the transformation of sites into cities, or even with the first emergence of urbanism in the region (because cities first appeared in the fourth millennium), a functional approach to cities is preferred. The characterization of certain mid-third millennium places as cities is widely accepted based on archaeological markers, but their functions relative to surrounding micro-regions is less well known. Recognizing the function of cities in relation to their broader contexts, in particular areas immediately around sites, allows analysis of the significance of various city layouts. The largest and most important cities of third-millennium Northern
Mesopotamia can be identified through textual and archaeological data, from both survey and excavation. These large sites fulfilled the functional duties of religious and political centers and were important nodes in craft production, trade, art, and writing. Lampl
(1968:6) defines ancient Near Eastern cities as “large, permanently settled, organized communities of people bound together by religious, political and economic interests, complementary and interdependent through a division of labor and stratification of society and headed by a priest, governor, prince or king, with a temple compound as a religious, and a palace or citadel as a political center.” This general definition is broadly applicable to the cities of Northern Mesopotamia.
2.2.1. Micro-Regions: Scale and the Definition of Cities
While the city became a useful unit of analysis for studying ancient civilizations, some scholars have found it limiting, particularly in cases where cities, rather than empires or territorial states, are the largest unit of societal organization. Cities do not exist in isolation but instead are always embedded within larger contexts. Smith (2007:4) defines urban places as “centers whose activities and institutions – whether economic, administrative, or religious – affect a larger hinterland.” The concept of the city
embedded in and influencing a greater hinterland is well attested in the literature (Blanton 1976, Hansen 2000, 2008, Nichols and Charlton 1997, Trigger 2003, Marcus and Sabloff 2008). Fox (1977) has argued that cities must be understood on the basis of the society within which they are embedded. For Fox, this translated into the separation of cities into three types: mercantile, regal/ritual, and administrative. In city-state cultures, however, the capital city or town must serve all of these functions, making the distinction
immaterial.
Some scholars have used the concept of the city-state as a framework for understanding cities. The value of this approach is that it provides broader contexts for
cities, both in its political aspects (state-level structure) and scale (which includes the area supporting the city). City-states are different from their counterparts, territorial states, which include numerous cities and a larger area of control (Trigger 2003, Hansen 2000, 2008).5 Still, city-state analysis also relies on understanding larger cultural contexts. City-states are usually part of a larger city-state culture that is inter-dependent and connected (Hansen 2000). The city-state model includes the hinterland as a part of the urban, rather than in opposition to it. Hansen (2000:19) describes the city-state as:
“a highly institutionalized and highly centralised micro-state consisting of one town (often walled) with its immediate hinterland and settled with a stratified population, of whom some are citizens, some foreigners and sometimes, slaves.
Its territory is mostly so small that the urban centre can be reached in a day's walk or less, and the politically privileged part of its population is so small that it does in fact constitute a face-to-face society. The population is ethnically affiliated with the population of neighbouring city-states, but political identity is focused on the city-state itself and based on differentiation from other city-states. A
significantly large fraction of the population is settled in the town, the others are settled in the hinterland, either dispersed in farmsteads or nucleated in villages or both. The urban economy implies specialisation of function and division of labour to such an extent that the population has to satisfy a significant part of their daily needs by purchase in the city's market. The city-state is self-governing but not necessarily an independent political unit.”
The scope of the state presents a clear unit for study. The micro-region of the city-state, generally confined to an area of one day’s walk, represents the broader urban environment. Cities can dramatically influence the immediate hinterlands (Harmanşah 2013). Using Hansen’s description it is clear that the “where” of activities – their locations – are important aspects of city-states, focusing on the distribution of various people and activities within the urban landscape and circumscribed within a set boundary.
5 Hansen (2000) prefers the term ‘macro-state’ over ‘territorial state’.
It is also clear that the city, using this definition, extends beyond the walls or immediate settled area to include a broader supporting area.
In the case of Northern Mesopotamian cities, Hansen’s definition fits very neatly with the known organization of cities. Since the cities of the SUR were city-states, it is necessary to consider them within their broader setting, including lower towns and extramural areas in understandings of the distribution of specialization, population, and political activities. Functions, however, must be detected through archaeological
correlates and the ‘where’ of an activity can illuminate the political, religious, economic, and social nature of relationships. The micro-region of the city-state provides an
important framework for studying cities, emphasizing their place in the landscape and the need to understand more than the centralized aspects of society.