So...in other words, Cities Make The Kings

[Minimalist]

....Kings Don't Make The Cities.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 082807.php

Ancient cities arose not by decree from a centralized political power, as was previously widely believed, but as the outgrowth of decisions made by smaller groups or individuals, according to a new study from researchers at Harvard University, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Edinburgh.

“The results of our work show that the existing models for the origins of ancient cities may in fact be flawed,” says Ur. “Urbanism does not appear to have originated with a single, powerful ruler or political entity. Instead, it was the organic outgrowth of many groups coming together.”

[Beagle]

Location, location, location.

Seems to have been as true then as it is now.

[Beagle]

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/2 ... 033/NEWS01

Excavations at a 6,000-year-old archaeological mound in northeastern Syria called Tell Brak are providing an alternative explanation for how the first cities may have grown.

Here's another article on the same subject, posted today by Michelle.

[daybrown]

When it comes to locations at the end of the ice age, the high plain of Anatolia was prime real estate. Lake Tuz at the time was 50 times larger, full of glacial meltwater.

Every winter, it filled up with Siberian waterfowl. the vulcanism in the area provided lotsa obsidian to produce the best arrowheads. That rapidly evolved into the world's first industrial zone, with points being made in 2 styles, one preferred up North, the other in the Levant.

When stock breeders came in, rather than having to drive herds from the Fertile Crescent up into Siberia, now its just a 50 km walk to the high Taurus mountain pastures- where the einkorn grew wild that evolved into wheat. Then, when the stock comes down to winter pastures by the lake, the seed in the rumen gets shit out, and winter wheat is the result.

Winter camps by the lake become permanent homes for the elders & kids while the adults take the stock up into summer pastures. The more people who live in a single community, the more able they are to defend themselves from raiders.

The same sort of thing was seen in the SW American states, where farmers began growing corn, but then had to build their houses next to each other, to eventually evolve into the pueblos we see now that formerly were so useful for mutual defense.

Right. Kings had nothing whatever to do with it. Au Contraire, it was the necessity of defense against what we'd call 'warlords' that produced the first cities.

[Beagle]

Good point DB. The earliest cities known were walled cities, so defense had to be a major factor. I don't remember about Catalhoyuk though. Possibly it was not walled.

[Minimalist]

A stone wall is not always necessary. A ditch and a wooden stockade can suffice, except maybe at the gateway.

[kbs2244]

One tell, in the whole world, and we upset the apple cart?

We talked about this in another thread. The oldest towns seem to have come about at convent places for people to live together. Crossing trade routes, a ford across a river, a place to build a water wheel mill, etc.
A local farmer starts selling vegetables at the ford. That becomes a store when he starts selling imported to him, for resell, goods. Someone builds a tavern. A lady get a business idea.
These were towns, not cities. No walls or central government. Just people starting to live in the same area. If the locals were hostile, a wall and a loose government may become necessary for defense. But if everyone treated each other fairly, there was most often no need.

But it works the other way also.
Every history student knows the layout of a Roman town.
A powerful, central government, in an expansion mode, builds “forts” or “castles” or “outposts” on the edge of their territory. They have walls because of their military background. They are to project their power.
But more importantly, they are there to get the locals used to their presence, start a trade of raw materials for manufactured goods, and an eventual dependence by the locals on the presence of the intruders. You end up with a town supporting this trade outside the walls.
There will always be some who long for “the old ways.” But the “good life” of the enforced peace, the easy access to manufactured goods, etc. will always win out in about two generations.

The Romans did it all through Europe, the English did it through Wales, the US did it on the Great Plains. And, I expect, Nimrod did it, as did Gilgamesh, the Chinese, the Japanese, just about every expanding power.

The exception I can think of was the British and the Hudson Bay Company. No forts. Just trading posts. They lost some to the locals, but in the end, the same economic based system worked.

[Minimalist]

I think the concluding paragraph of the second article really hits the nail on the head.

The finds, the researchers wrote, suggest that the study of early urban areas "must accommodate multiple models for the origins of cities."

[daybrown]

Like the Anatolian cities, Hopi & Navajo pueblos dont have windows on the exterior walls, and present a very defensible appearance. Access thru the smoke holes in the roof kept the rooms cool in a hot summer climate. Also meant that an attacking warrior had to enter ass first.

Hopi & Navajo seem to have a racial memory of Chaco Canyon & the rule by the warrior class. As Diamond shows here & with other cultures, the power elite wants continuous progress, and when the local resource base has a problem, increase their exploitation to maintain that illusion. Whatever else the cliff dwellings are, they are security, and not progress.

At both Chaco Canyon & Easter Island the revolution happened over nite. With the Maya, maybe a month. But now, its been 800 years since Chaco, and the Hopi & Navajo have done well without alpha male warrior leadership. The Anatolian cities presented the same kind of hard targets, so they were never attacked, and because they were run by women, never tried to expand their power bases at the expense of other cities or had the war with them that results.

Same deal with the Taklamakhan cities like Khotan, Niya, Kucha, Loulan, & Urumchi. The desert separated them all, and defended them all. Whole armies were known to be swollowed up. Perhaps you've read that the name, "Taklamakhan" in Chinese means "go in, do not come back out".

Again, no advantage in the high cost of rule by the warrior class, so they were ruled by women. But conversely, where the fertile river valleys presented zero sum games of convenient warfare, the warrior class usually took over.

[NAeuroMUT]

It would seem that history has the answer, or at least one that makes sense to me.

Not long ago I watched a documentary called God, Guns and Germs.
The root message was that Civilizations that travel laterally are more successful then those that travel vertically due to two reasons.

1. Similar Eco systems support current cultural practices i.e. hunting, foraging etc.

2. Encounters with rivals produce defense mechanisims which force broad thinking and innovation.

Civilizations, or cultures that become xenophobic (be it from walls, or location) always fall behind. China is a perfect example, as are the Americas. When we consider the Cities of Mesopotamia, and other Cultural cross roads, we most also consider population, predation (fellow humans, or predators) density, trade, and religion. Walls are built to keep the bad guys, and the critters out. For the lack of large predators, or humans. Only a ditch with some pointy stakes or some other less formidable obstacle is required.
The larger the population, the more inclined a government of some kind will evolve toward urbanization. Often times it is a result of Religion. In my humble opinion, some wise guy/girl convinces his/her neighbor to start doing the chores, and poof! a priest/king is born. But the basis for the cooperation in the first place is more due to commerce, common protection and culture then for anything else.
We are social creatures after all. We protect our own, but once others start moving in and begin to over hunt/fish/farm, we start thinking about our own in smaller terms. Then things start getting rough. I think a vast majority of our problems have been over looked because it is so ingrained in us by religion, and social ideas that we have overlooked that which is most apparent. There is just to many of us, and there has been for a Very long time. Which raises one very good question. What now?

I know I went a bit a field here, but...well. There it is

[Cognito]

There is just to many of us, and there has been for a Very long time. Which raises one very good question. What now?

Well, I don't believe the world has been overpopulated with humans that long.

http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html

The population at the end of the Pleistocene was about 4 million. Then, 5000 years after that it was about 5 million. Then, the effects of agriculture kicked in and it was off to the races. Another 7000 years and the population has swelled to 6-1/2 billion. Nature will adjust this imbalance!

[NAeuroMUT]

There is just to many of us, and there has been for a Very long time. Which raises one very good question. What now?

Well, I don't believe the world has been overpopulated with humans that long.

http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html

The population at the end of the Pleistocene was about 4 million. Then, 5000 years after that it was about 5 million. Then, the effects of agriculture kicked in and it was off to the races. Another 7000 years and the population has swelled to 6-1/2 billion. Nature will adjust this imbalance!

Perhaps not the world, but the local eco sphere. It does not take many large predators to over populate an area. And that is really what we are talking about here. Once a group sees that they are treading troden trails, they start breaking their own. Not much has changed in the last 10 thousand years. We just paint better pictures now
Global thinking is a new concept that has yet to take root universally. Not one culture on the face of the planet to this date has thought in terms of Global. We are on the verge, but the resistance is still powerful.
We have progressively thought on larger scales as our cultures forced us to. We must remember, we are not that far removed from the creatures of the forest, plains, and oceans.
And what affects other predators has affected us as well. We have overcome these problems with farming, and animal husbandry. But if you think about it on a social scale. We are still the same omnivores. Our sapience is both our blessing and our cures. With the "I think, there for I am" comes Vanity. We fail to realize that we are the same as those which we have overcome. We are subject to the same laws of existence. We must eat, we must propagate, we fear, we must defend the young etc."
We have made incredibly articulate reasons for our existence but our existance is no better for no better reason the your cat. We can say, "But we are Gods creation" but are we really?
In short; As a specie, we have lost site of the forest for the trees.

Occam's Razor seems to fit best here.
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

I am off to drink some Egyption Wheat products with the wife at the local and mull over some of my concepts with some fellow knobby skulled knuckle draggers See yas in the morning......I LOVE this forum btw. I have learned more in my day here, then...well. If I let you you guys in on how long, I'll let the Cat out of the bag regarding my education

mods, sorry for the off topic. I'll clean it up.

[daybrown]

Cities dont always result in kings. In fact, the very first cities, like Hacilar and Chatal Hoyuk, 8000-11000 years ago, were ruled by women. At the end of the 7th mil, chronic drought drove most people north, and we see the same culture in SE Europe.

which was still in place when the plank hulled sailboat was developed, and horses were first domesticated. Those who rode ships south show up as the Cycladic and Minoans. Still ruled by women. And those who got on the horses, became the Amazons, and founded the cities of the Silk Road, also ruled by women.

During the whole time, the women used herbal birth control and had stable popultions within their ecosystems. Drought destroyed the earliest matriarchies in Anatolia. Anthrax came in with the first horses 6000 years ago to destroy the Transylvanian matraiarchies. The eruption of Mt Stronghyle on Thera destroyed the Minoan control of the sea, and the low populations of the Amazons and their silk Road cities were eventually over run by hordes of Mongols.

But now, the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... just dont cut it any more. Smart women know that Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for women, and some of them are researching their ancestral matriarchic roots in trying to decide what to do next. From now on, its not masses of men, but masses of gray matter that matter.

Crunch the numbers. The world cannot support 6.5 billion living as nuclear families. But that's no problem if they move into communal housing like the Matriarchic Mosou still use. With one kitchen and plumbing system, with built in childcare with the matrons, the cost per capita is sustainable.

But pheremones being what they are, monogamy will be history.

[Forum Monk]

Sorry D/B. Maybe you need to meet some different women.

Seriously, I question the validity of these matriarchal societies you reference in your post. Matriarchies are the exception, not the rule through out the animal kingdom and there is very little evidence of matriarchal human socieites which sustained in any more than a temporal fashion, if at all. Even within the scope of the last 6K+ years of recorded history, dominions ruled by dictatorial queens often masqueraded as males during their tenures and rarely has the leadership been passed through matriarchal lines.

In other words, ancient amazon communities are mainly the stuff of myth and legend unless you actually refer to a society which does not structure itself on a male dominated hierarchy. But the difference between a non-male dominated hierarchy and matriarchy is profound.

The Mosou society in China appears to be a somewhat bona-fide matriarchy but I think little is understood about its origins and it seems to perpetuate today on the strength of tourist dollars.

[NAeuroMUT]

Sorry D/B. Maybe you need to meet some different women.

Seriously, I question the validity of these matriarchal societies you reference in your post. Matriarchies are the exception, not the rule through out the animal kingdom and there is very little evidence of matriarchal human socieites which sustained in any more than a temporal fashion, if at all. Even within the scope of the last 6K+ years of recorded history, dominions ruled by dictatorial queens often masqueraded as males during their tenures and rarely has the leadership been passed through matriarchal lines.

In other words, ancient amazon communities are mainly the stuff of myth and legend unless you actually refer to a society which does not structure itself on a male dominated hierarchy. But the difference between a non-male dominated hierarchy and matriarchy is profound.

The Mosou society in China appears to be a somewhat bona-fide matriarchy but I think little is understood about its origins and it seems to perpetuate today on the strength of tourist dollars.

Perhaps the pre-Roman/Gothic Celtic Europe was not considered here. The Celts were very much Matriarchal. Budica, (among others) case in point. She was not pre-Roman nor mainland Europe, but certainly Celtic. The fact that she was a Queen inheriting from a King was the reason the Romans had her, and her daughters raped and killed. She was a threat. We males hate threats. Prior to her coming into her inheritance, the Romans had been trying to get rid of these pesky Celts for a long time.
Julius Caesar was a politician that needed money to become a dictator. At the time, he didn't have any source within the Empire to seek control over. Now, there was this large Civilization of folks that dressed up like women, and followed a Matriarchal system of beliefs just a few clicks to the north. Not to mention, they were sitting on some 400+ Gold Mines.
How convenient that they should also practice a religion that would inflame the Romans to systematically exterminate them from the face of the mainland. And let’s not forget that one of their ancestors was the first to sack Rome. Not only did he sack it, but had the Odacity to sack at a cut rate price. "Wo to the vanquished" (Brenus) as he cast his sword on the scales. How insulting this would be to a society that coveted money above all else that he only demanded a poultry few thousand lira.
I think a fantasy writer named David Eddings defines the Romans wonderfully in his works. He does not say the names, but he sure does make his point. Romans and the rest of the Sun God civilizations were, and still are about the money and the power that it brings. Ironically, all the Sun cults are Patriarchal. All the Earth Cults Matriarchal, the mother is the font, the father the seed. Sounds like a chicken and egg argument gone astray.