the biggest settlements in their part of the world, might
not qualify as cities. The large communities of the Maya
(600 b.c.e.–1521 c.e.), and those of the Shang Dynasty (ca.
1500–ca. 1045 b.c.e.) of China in the might not meet the
criterion either.
Another approach to defi ning the nature of a city is by
the settlement’s social organization. Are the people living
lives apart from one another, organizing themselves more
like a cluster of villages than a unifi ed community? Such
a settlement might not be a city. On the other hand, if the
city has the equivalent of a public works department, would
it be a city? If there were public employees who repaired
streets, lighted lamps at night, or kept the sewers clear,
would that imply a civic government and therefore a city?
Still, a settlement of 1,500 people might well have people in
charge of lighting lamps at night and maintaining irriga-
tion ditches or sewers. Is such a settlement a village with
public employees, the beginning of a city, or a true city?
Perhaps public maintenance of common ground sets a city
apart from other settlements.
Another way of defi ning what makes a true city is by its
construction. When archaeologists discuss Mohenjo Daro,
they almost inevitably note that it was designed to be a city.
It streets were laid out in a grid. Its sections were defi ned by
brick walls. It had sewers with manholes for people to enter
in order maintain them. Perhaps its construction of public
streets and buildings made it a city. Th e ancient Romans be-
lieved that to be true. When the Romans designed a city from
t he ground up, t hey made sure t hat it had public buildings. To
the Romans, the city of Rome had become a city when King
Tarquinius Priscus (r. 616–578 b.c.e.) built the fi rst Roman
Forum. Th at public structure made Rome a city. In ancient
Mesopotamia a wall around a city served the same purpose.
To Mesopotamians, that wall defi ned the sacred grounds of
their city.
In addition to the question of what makes a settlement a
city, archaeologists have long debated why cities arise in the
fi rst place. At present, the most common explanation is that
ancient people banded together for agricultural reasons.
Th is explanation has logic. In the 7000s b.c.e. people settled
in the land surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to
farm wheat and barley, but most of the region had too little
rain to raise crops, so they dug channels out of the rivers to
irrigate their fi elds. To dig irrigation canals required that
many people work together, which may have necessitated a
central government to organize them and direct their work.
It also may have been more convenient for people to live in
close proximity rather than scattered in villages, so that
they could easily gather together for their work and share
in its benefi ts.
Th ere are alternatives to the view that agriculture
prompted the beginning a cities. One alternative is pre-
sented by Eridu in Mesopotamia. At present, Eridu is the
earliest-known city. Archaeologists have found at the very
lowest level of Eridu, beneath which is only sand, a small
shrine. If archaeologists are correct that the fi rst structure
at Eridu was a small shrine, then it would appear that people
gathered into a community at Eridu not to farm but to live
on sacred ground. Th is would suggest that they gathered
together fi rst and then found a way to irrigate their land
near their sacred place. Th e motivation for creating the city
would therefore be spiritual, not agricultural. Given that
the Mesopotamians regarded their cities as sacred, perhaps
many of their cities began as spiritual places. Th ousands of
years later Romans took pains to make sure their cities were
on sacred land, which suggests the spiritual motivation was
important for many centuries.
Another possible reason for creating a city would be
mutual protection. Sometime between 10,000 and 8000
b.c.e. people built high and thick stone walls and an intimi-
dating stone tower at Jericho. Even that early some people
needed defenses to protect themselves, their property, their
harvests, or their sources of water. Jericho’s ancient walls re-
quired the eff orts of many people working together to build
them. Did people gather together in large communities to
better protect themselves from other people? Walls protect-
ing cities were almost universal in the ancient Near East,
were common in the region of China, and eventually show
up as wooden palisades in northern European settlements
before 700 b.c.e.
Yet another motivation for creating cities may have been
trade. It seems that everywhere in the world people began
trading resources before they made cities. A city might arise
on a trade route where people gathered together to share the
benefi ts of foreign goods. Th e city of Rome arose at the best
place for travelers to cross the Tiber River in Italy. Romans
had to build defensive walls because many people wanted to
take that crossing from them by force. In North Africa cit-
ies arose to take advantage of the trade in salt and copper;
the sites of the cities sometimes corresponded with the only
place for travelers to get fresh water for many miles in the
surrounding desert.
All this suggests that as one reads about the ancient cities
of the world, one delves into one of the greatest mysteries of
human nature. Why do we gather in cities? How do we know
when we have a true city? Is there even such a thing as a “true”
city? Just asking such questions while studying ancient cities
may give one greater insight into one’s place in the world and
the part one plays in one of the greatest dramas of human his-
tory, the building of cities.AFRICA
BY JAMES E. MEIER
Cities emerged at very early dates in some regions of Africa,
especially in the Nile River valley and along the North Afri-
can coast. However, in general terms the development of cit-
ies lagged signifi cantly in Africa, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa. Irrespective of their date of establishment, cities in
ancient Africa invariably arose in those areas with especially202 cities: Africa