In this chapter, I focused on spatial and planning principles shared by many Upper Mesopotamian cities. Although I emphasized similarities, it is also important to consider differences between cities and how these cities formed and changed over time. Here I consider briefly the contrasting features and life histories of two of the archaeologically better-known round cities, Beydar and Chuera. This comparison reveals that, despite their similar shape, they have very different developmental pathways.
Chuera consists of a walled, 28 ha inner mound, and a walled, 37 ha lower town (Figure 2.3).® In the earliest phases at Chuera, the focal point of the city was a public plaza flanked by residences, while the palace and temple-related facIlities were concentrated at the edges of the upper city along easily accessible streets. Additional small temples were situated within residential areas. In this scheme, the public plaza was the focal point that unified the households of the residents, the palace, and the temple. Yet, a few hundred years after its construction, the central plaza began to ill with garbage from adjacent residential areas. This garbage eventually rose to more than 8 meters high, along with the houses themselves, which were rebuilt again and again (Orthmann 1995a). These developments demonstrate that the original purpose and meaning of this plaza changed signiicantly as the city evolved. This shift may have impacted the linkage of the armature discussed earlier, or at least removed the plaza from this system. The remarkable shift from open to closed space indicates that the use and meaning of this space was changing
Or at least contested, and possibly created or derived from a sense of disorder among residents, as previously discussed.
Compared to Chuera, Beydar is a considerably smaller city covering 22.5 ha with 17 ha of settled area, including the top of the outer city wall and the 7 ha, 20 m high tell inside the inner city wall (Figure 6) (Lebeau 2006a:101; Ur and Wilkinson 2008:313). Between the inner and outer city walls, a moat adds further protection and a glacis accompanies the inner city wall (Lebeau 2006a, 2006b:3). In contrast to settlement at Chuera, which began in the upper city and later expanded to the lower town, at Beydar, the lower town and outer fortification were built at the very beginning of settlement but the lower town was not inhabited. In contrast to the plaza that formed the centerpiece of early settlement at Chuera, Beydar's core was dominated by a palace and five temples set upon a three-tiered terrace flanked by a glacis on two sides and accessed by a single street that narrows to provide choke or control points as it ascends toward the palace (Lebeau 2006a; Stenuit and Van der Stede 2003). Residential housing is found at the northern base of the palace glacis (Area B), while a second palace lies to the east below the central palace (Area P). From what is known of its life history, the central palace and temples remained the focal point of Beydar throughout the habitation of this city, even during the decline of its last years.
The fundamental difference in the focal point, viewshed, location, and accessIbility of the palace, temples, and residences indicates very different developmental pathways for Beydar and Chuera. From its founding, Beydar looks like a small fort-city designed to protect the wealth of the palace and temple households, which probably had a close political alliance, whereas Chuera's founding plan gave prominence to residences and puBlic space, and provided access to temples anD the palace, which were spatially on a par with regular residences and located near or next to large open areas. The separation between the palace and major temple area at Chuera may indicate that these institutions were also more politically independent than at Beydar. Finally, if the second palace in Area P at Beydar proves to be surrounded by additional administrative buildings, then the space for housing at Beydar will shrink further, suggesting a lower population than we would expect from The site area alone.
Thus far I have argued that Upper Mesopotamian cities were planned and constructed by multiple groups in society who generated a collage of urban spaces. In most cases, the structure of the earliest phases of these cities is poorly known, lying beneath remains from later periods and making it difficult to state with certainty the extent to which later urban plans reflect an original spatial model. I noted that infrastructure shapes later development and construction of space is conservative in these cities. In two cases, Chuera and Al-Rawda, their researchers argue explicitly that significant parts, if not all of their city structure, were planned at the outset. If these cities were indeed planned on a large scale from their earliest period, then they may represent ideal cities in which the construction of space conforms to their builders' notions of a "good" city.
PRODUCTION OF SPACE IN MESOPOTAMIAN CITIES
The excavators of Chuera argue that the site "was a town from its very beginning. . . Its existence is the result of a deliberate townplanning process" (Pruss 2000:1432). This statement derives from the finding that the large plaza at the center of the site overlies midfourth millennium and earlier remains, but not material from the early third millennium that immediately preceded the growth of the city (Pruss 1998). Yet it does not consider that a small early third-millennium settlement couLd be located anywhere on the high mound, not just beneath the central plaza. Nonetheless, it does appear that the plaza, main street, and probably the basic parameters of housing and sacred areas were defined early in the life of the city. If further excavations demonstrate that the earliest foundations of each of these areas date to the same narrow period, then Chuera may indeed represent a town plan enacted by a central government, but this does not rule out participation by residents.
The excavators of Al-Rawda argue that specialists under the direction of the central authorities built the major infrastructure in the city - including the main streets, city gates, city wall, and central sector - in one single, concerted efforT (Castel and Peltenburg 2007:604; Gondet and Castel 2004:108). They further argue that the plan of Al-Rawda could not have developed without a model, and they cite Tell Chuera, more than 200 kilometers to the northeast, and Tell Sheirat, 32 kilometers south of Al-Rawda, as examples of round cities that may have inspired the builders of Al-Rawda. It
Is possible that the architects, builders, and workers at Al-Rawda visited other round cities before or during the construction of their own settlement. In his study of the texts from Ebla, Archi notes that attached craft specialists, or those working explicitly for a government or institution, traveled between cities to work for other rulers. For example, smiths or carpenters traveled between Ebla and other nearby cities - even as far as Mari and Kish - presumably to complete special projects for which their skills were needed (Archi 1988:28). This exchange of specialists undoubtedly spread ideas about technology and style, and may have influenced city planning.
To my knowledge, no one has argued that any of the non-round (oblong) cities were built all at once according to a single master plan. The closest example to this kind of planning may be the rebuilding of portions oF Titris, as described earlier. Yet, oblong cities also demonstrate ideals of city space through the repeated use of major streets to funneL trafic between major nodes, narrow lanes and culs-de-sac to restrict or inhibit access to housing, the construction of clustered structures, anD the establishment of multiple centers.
World History
