Mario Liverani (° 1939, Professor of Ancient Near East History at the University of Rome La Sapienza) was one of the great specialists of early Mesopotamian history. This book is kind of his spiritual testament. It sums up the state of affairs in this domain, at the time of publication (2017), with a special focus on the issues that still are debated. In this sense, it offers much more than a history of that first city, Uruk. First of all, we are not quite sure the south-Mesopotamian Uruk really was the first extended city in human history. All we know is that up until now it is the largest one that has been digged up, dating back to the 4th millennium BCE. It’s always possible that in the future other places will be unearthed that prove to have been much larger. Now, at the same time, it’s obvious Uruk must have been a prominent place in those times, given the amount of ceramics “in the style of Uruk” that were found throughout Mesopotamia and beyond. So, let’s state that Uruk was representative of the earliest complex human society, in which – for instance – writing had become a prominent feature of culture and society. “In the mature phase of this process (late Uruk phase, ca. 3500-3000 BC) we are witnessing the definitive explosion of the ongoing process, with urban concentrations of previously unthinkable dimensions (with the 100 hectares of Uruk), with a templar architecture of extraordinary grandeur and value (in particular the sacred area of the Eanna of Uruk), with the beginning of writing and therefore of a sophisticated and depersonalized administration." No small feat, indeed.

Liverani deals with a lot of issues that still surround the study of early Mesopotamian history: “What needs did the new political and economic organization respond to? Who were the authors (conscious or not) of the changes underway? Why was the process so early in Lower Mesopotamia? Was it a rapid revolution or a progressive adaptation? What was the weight of the ecological, technological, demographic, socio-economic, political and ideological factors? What was the success of the Uruk experiment, and what changes did it undergo in its spatial expansion and in its persistence over time?" That are a lot of issues, and Liverani is quite franc to state that not all of these questions can be answered in an equivocal way, not now and perhaps not ever.

Still, it is striking that the author makes a point in formulating his own view on all of these issues, based on a reasonable argumentation. For instance, he has a clear preference for speaking of a multi-factorial transition in the evolution to a complex society (or state), rather than an univocal urban revolution (term calibrated by Vere Gordon Childe). Liverani constantly emphasizes the diversity of developments: the dynamics that started in Uruk, for example, were very different from those in other city-states. This Uruk dynamic was mainly due to the introduction of the system of elongated fields that allowed for a fine-meshed system of irrigation (in grooves), rather than by flooding an entire field; this required central planning and coordination, as well as the use of corvee (volunteered or forced labor), factors that undoubtedly accelerated the evolution towards a complex society, in which the temple administration initially played a central role. This resulted in a food surplus based on the cultivation of barley (more resistant to salinization) and a commercial surplus through the massive processing of wool. But here too Liverani leaves room for a great deal of diversity, both in the geographical distribution, the centralization of agricultural and textile production, and in the social composition of the various urban centers.

This is perhaps more a book for specialists, people who are already more or less familiar with the various debates that are going on around the development of the earliest civilizations. Due to its theoretical content and the dense writing style, it will certainly deter the average reader. But if Liverani has made anything clear to me, it is that Graeber and Wengrow in their much lauded [b:The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity|56269264|The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity|David Graeber|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1617072525l/56269264._SX50_.jpg|87659801] are absolutely not the first ones to criticize the simple, univocal model of urban revolution. Rating 3.5 stars.

The title of this book is a bit misleading. The southern Mesopotamian city of Uruk indeed was one of the first urban centers of mankind and definitely a landmark in the earliest history of human civilizations (from about 4,000 BCE). Mario Liverani regularly zooms in on Uruk and its surroundings. But his focus is much broader. Geographically, he covers almost the entire Mesopotamian cultural area (and even beyond). And his focus is theoretical rather than factual: he systematically deals with the various discussions that are raging in the study of Mesopotamian history, such as the question of what was the most important factor in the formation of urban centers and states, or in the development of writing. That theoretical approach may deter the average reader, but the views of Liverani do absolutely justice to the large gaps that still exist in our knowledge of the earliest human history, and to the complexity of the developments that took place at that time. More on this in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1935848854.

The first city in history, Uruk, in S. Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), is the subject of this book by Mario Liverani, a Professor at Sapienza University of Rome.

It was at Uruk at the fag end of the 4th millenium BCE that, as the translators, Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Meiroop write, "We see the appearance of the state, of writing, of bronze manufacture, of monumental art and architecture, and of an integrated economy that tied together the urbanized core and the non-urban periphery." (p.vii)

The start of the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia. So what was the driver for these phenomena? And how were they connected?

To start with, the tool Prof. Liverani uses in his analysis is the Marxist concept of "the 'primitive' (primary, or pristine) accumulation of capital." What this boils down to is an investigation of production, agricultural production and in particular the production of grain (barley.) Prof. Liverani shows how the invention of "long field" agriculture in Uruk meant (1) centralization necessary to organise it, but (2) production was boosted so much that a massive surplus could be siphoned off from its producers by a priestly class, to fund the projects like "hydraulic works" (irrigation canals) and temples needed to keep the system itself going.

This book hasn't got a lot of theological content. Prof. Liverani doesn't discuss whether or not the gods exist(ed.) His interest is more in ideology, in the gods being used to prop up the economic system:

"Regarding the industrial revolution, Marx wrote that, 'the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic'. Similar considerations should be made for the accumulation of resources that brought about the urban revolution. The extraction of resources from the producers, and from consumption within the families, and their diversion towards social services, required a strong dose of coercion. Such coercion could be physical, but the use of force is expensive and becomes counterproductive after a while. Therefore, preferably the coercion is ideological. The temple was the only institution that could convince producers to give up substantial parts of their work for the advantage of the community and its administrators, represented by their divine hypostases." (p.24-5)

So what were the technical innovations powering the "urban revolution" at the start of the Bronze Age? Prof. Liverani discusses four: the long field; the seeder plough; the threshing sledge; and the clay sickle.

THE LONG FIELD

Prof. Liverani differentiates between two types of irrigation: Basin irrigation, and furrow irrigation.

Basin irrigation submerged a field under a thin layer of water, which soaked straight down. It was done in a square field with low embankments. A single family could work a whole field without much need for co-ordination with neighbours.

Furrow irrigation came to be used in long sloped fields, narrower strips of land with a canal along the higher end of the slope, with water travelling down furrows to marshes or drainage basins at the bottom:

"An extensive area had to be developed *ex novo*, with great blocks of fields placed in a 'herringbone pattern' off the two sides of the canal. The slope of the terrain was adapted to the morphology of the delta, since the canals inside dykes were raised above the fields, as a result of the buildup of sediment, and there were lateral basins or marshes for the release of excess water. The long fields therefore required the presence of a central coordinating agency for their planning and management. One installed, they allowed productivity on a large scale..." (p.16)

THE SEEDER PLOUGH

Connected to the long field was another development, the animal-pulled plough. Using 2-3 oxen, this allowed digging furrows hundreds of metres long. The ploughs were unwieldy turning around, but the lengths of the fields minimised the need for this, and the ploughs saved massive amounts of time compared to digging furrows by hoe.

At seeding time, the plough had a funnel fitted converting it into a seeder. The seeder plough put the seeds deep into the furrow, saving on loss from dispersion by hand. Prof. Liverani estimates a 50% increase in yields from the seeder plough.

THE THRESHING SLEDGE

Barley was threshed on a special threshing floor, using a sledge with flint blades at the bottom, pulled by an ass. The most efficient means of transporting the harvest from field to threshing floor and from threshing floor to storage house was by boat. These used the system of canals and river branches.

THE CLAY SICKLE

Crescent shaped sickles with sharp internal edges were used to harvest barley. These were low cost (and disposable, not being resharpenable like flint), therefore they made feasible using multiple labourers working simultaneously.

Prof. Liverani estimates that taking all these technical innovations together, with the system of central organisation, there was an increase in productivity of 500-1000%.

SHEEP AND GOATS

Sheep were the other staple of the 3rd millenium Sumerian economy, apart from barley.

There were three phases of the wool economy:

1. BREEDING

There were two patterns for sheep and goats.

'Horizontal transhumance.' Pastures were used in the Syro-Arabian steppe (dry grassy plain) during winter and spring, when vegetation spouted following winter rains. In the hot and dry summer herdsmen used pastures in the river valleys.

'Vertical transhumance' in the Zagros Mountains in N.E. Mesopotamia. Mountain pastures were used in the summer and autumn, and foothill pastures in the winter and spring.

Flocks were entrusted to shepherds. Sheep breeding took place out of reach of temple administrators so there were fixed quotas set for the growth of flocks from births, and for their production of wool and dairy products. Animals slaughtered for the temple and used as sacrifices and at banquets were deducted from the total. This was normally <25% so flocks tended to remain constant over time.

2. SHEARING BY FORCED LABOUR

Shearing required a high concentration of labour over a short period. So forced labour was used, paid for with rations. (The same system was used for the barley harvest.)

3. SPINNING AND WEAVING BY SLAVE LABOUR

This was the most labour-intensive phase in the work with wool. Slave labour was used, hundreds of women and children concentrated in special buildings controlled by guards and overseers. Slaves were recruited from prisoners of war and oblates. (Later, in the 2nd millenium, it was mostly debt-slaves.)

TRADE IN METALS, SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES AND WOOD

These raw materials were naturally lacking in Lower Mesopotamia. So long-distance trade developed, especially because of the emergence of metallurgy. Similar to the deal with shepherds, merchants working on behalf of the temple could make a profit for themselves, by exchanging goods in other lands for more than the rate of exchange set them by temple administrators.

Trade was carried out by means of caravans of asses and mules, travelling about 25KM per day. Sample loads per animal were 70KG cloth(export) and 90KG metal (import.)

ACCOUNTING BY 60 AND THE WORLD VIEW IN BRONZE AGE IRAQ

Standard measures were introduced because of the need to calculate food rations for labour, the values of merchandise, etc.

"A first level of standardization of reality derives from the inventory itself of its constitutive parts. The lexical lists - instruments that helped scribal activity - contain in fact a taxonomic summary of reality. In the infinite variability of the real, typological or functional units were fixed through their relationship to economic use." (p.57)

Labour time was calculated in man days- the amount of labour one man is to perform in a day. It was an abstraction which could represent the amount of earth dug out for a canal, the area of a field to be harvested, or the amount of pottery or textiles produced. Numerical relations, in rations and labour, used a sexagesimal system (based on 60.)

This affected the computation of time. A sexagesimal system was introduced, years of 360 days, divided into 12 months of 30 days. 5 or 6 days were added at the end of each year and were outside of labour calculations.

Linear measurements started from the length of a man's forearm, and then other measurements were taken from that using 1:10, 1:6 and 1:60 ratios.

Construction projects used cubits and its multiples, i.e. working out the number of bricks to be produced and put in place- both in relation to volume and labour time.

Weights were based on shekels, minas and talents (1 talent = 30KG = the load a man can carry) and on the 1:60:360 sequence.
Different commodities could be exchanged with each other using this system of weights and measures. 1 shekel of silver = 300L of barley = 12L of sesame oil =6 or 10 minas of wool =2 or 3 minas of copper.