Uruk, One of the First Cities

When reading the first couple of chapters of Uruk The First City, one of the things that I noticed that Mario Liverani does in addition to arguing about the development of the region is his split of the area into the Upper and Lower Mesopotamia, respectively, the north and the south. By doing so, he compares and contrasts the qualities of these two provinces such that it can be seen that there were other developing cities at the time of Uruk’s existence. Such cities, like the Nippur in the central region and Eridu in the south are also characterized by profound accomplishments of development, those of which are supported by the evidence found at their respective excavations (Gasche). Thus, although there may be a good chance that Uruk was indeed the “first city,” I think it important to note that there were others not far behind.

In the first chapter, Liverani cites that the Near Eastern economy was based on an organization of redistribution and accumulation, namely in the form of farming. The ability of a region to be able to sustain itself through food and resources is important for a city to thrive and survive. As a part of the Lower Mesopotamia, Uruk was thought to have had a part in this ‘agricultural revolution,’ and thus benefited off of the inventions of an irrigation system and the seeder-plow, for example. Liverani makes mention however that there were other cities, such as those in the valley zone which, too, used the long fields for irrigation and are characterized as “[developed] cities ... accompanied by an analogous growth of minor settlements (27). Thus, because there are other cities marked by modes of development, I find it a problem in Liverani’s approach to denote Uruk as the “first city”. I either need to read on to understand if there is more evidence to back the claim that Uruk is indeed the “first city,” or I think it might be wise for Liverani to not make such bold a claim.

In addition to having a sound economy, a developing city needs to have strong ties among the community, and this, begins with the family. Even though Uruk is characterized as having given “rise to the nuclear productive unit,” as a result of the urban revolution, I believe it can be supported that places in the north, should also be considered as developed. The rise of extended families (and inheritance, which is a custom that exists today) came about as a result of the secondary agricultural revolution (28). Although not quite as advanced, this cities made developments that should be noted as very influential in how cities then and now are created.

Thus, although there may be evidence to support that Uruk was one of the first cities, I think that there, too, is support that there were other places that experienced their own means of development. (Even though Uruk may have outlasted other cities, I do not think it fair to discount the achievement that other cities had in establishment). I think it is also key to note that Mesopotamia should not be considered as two separate entities (the Lower and the Upper) because there is evidence to support that an “internal migration, from the countryside to the city or from one zone to another, took place” (27). Such communication between these two regions would make it likely for nearby cities to develop simultaneously.

References
Gasche, Hermann. “Susa i. Excavations.” Encyclopedia Iranica, 20 July 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2011.