15,697
edits
Changes
no edit summary
__NOTOC__
[[File:Eriduiraq4000bc.jpeg|thumbnail|300px|left|A reconstruction of the river port of Eridu, Iraq]]
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 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 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 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 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 in cities did not benefit everyone equally but became more concentrated toward fewer individuals. This increasingly powerful class needed laborers to serve them. This drive for labor helped to motivate people to the growing urban centers and warfare and trade that also likely motivated a greater concentration of people in smaller spaces. Therefore, this differential wealth and power 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. This effectively 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>
==Conclusion==
What we see from this brief overview is that a natural process did not drive urbanism. In fact, this process took several millennia after the invention of agriculture, making it possible to settle in one region. Urbanism 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 and motivation to expand trade networks as they often lacked raw resources. Warfare could have resulted from increased trade competition, forcing more people to seek protection in the cities. Social inequality was a byproduct and likely motivated the greater population to cities as wealth and power helped concentrate people.
<youtube>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBk9KywTIgk&list=RDCMUCsooa4yRKGN_zEE8iknghZA&index=25</youtube>
<div class="portal" style="width:85%;">
==Related DailyHistory.org Articles==
*[[Why was Alexander the Great So Successful In His Conquests?]]
</div>
==References==
