The production of space in Upper Mesopotamian cities was conservative; spatial principles established early in the life of the city were maintained over long periods of time. During the course of their life history, streets and city walls tended to be rebuilt in the same space, houses were built over houses, palaces over palaces, and temples over temples. Thus, it is rare to find examples of what Ernest Burgess (1925) called "organization" anD "disorganization," in which the primary use of different parts of the city changed over time. These episodes usually occurred during major regional transitions, such as in the late third to early second millennium when many polities experienced a collapse, decline, hiatus, or reorganization of settlement (Cooper 2006a; Ur 2010). Even massive rebuilding efforts, such as after a ire that destroyed the sacred precinct at Chuera, tend to maintain the primary use or function of an area (Orthmann i995b:32). Although this might be expected for sacred or political structures, the endurance of housing - and presumably neighborhoods, in most cities - is striking and indicates the probable importance of land ownership and inheritance within the city.7 An exception to this pattern may be found aT Titris, where the lower town shows continuity while the outer town contains significant changes from the mid - to late third millennium, reflecting either a shift from public to private architecture, or elite to non-elite housing (Algaze and Pournelle 2003:107; Matney 2002:25; Matney and Algaze 1995:49).
Explanations for conservative production of space vary. As previously noted, for reasons of cost, infrastructure tends to remain in place and shape later development (Herman and Ausubel 1988:13). City planners note that urban space can become relatively fixed and resist change despite changes in economics or society (Herbert and Thomas 1990:126). Manuel Castells argues that the production and construction of urban space is fraught with conflict in which dominant institutions resist changes to urban structure (Castells 1983:xviii). In this view, substantial change in urban planning requires top-down decisions or major grassroots efforts (Castells 1983:303-304). Although Castells' interpretation makes sense in the context of very powerful institutions, I argue that in cases of increased power-sharing, conservative city plans may derive from a desire among residents for comfort and continuity. Although desire may be impossible to analyze with archaeological data, studies of human behavior indicate that if one's immediate surroundings are orderly or familiar, then one feels empowered whereas disorder enhances feelings of powerlessness (Geis 1998:243). A sense of order or disorder derives as much from the construction of space as the production of space, but the structuring effect of the latter may have a significant effect on maintaining social order. Thus, contra Louis Wirth's assertions - based in part on the writings of Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel - that the anonymity of cities diminishes the importance of neighborhoods (Wirth 1938:11, 21); in Mesopotamian cities, as in some modern cities, the neighborhood was very important for building and maintaining sociaL ties (Logan and Spitze 1994; Stone 1987:129). This social importance would have contributed to conservative production of space in neighborhoods, and enhanced place attachment, "the symbolic relationship formed by people giving culturally shared emo-tional/affective meanings to a particular space or piece of land that provides the basis for the individual's and group's understanding of and relation to the environment" (Low 1992:165). This meaning may be especially strong in cases where family tombs were located within houses, as at Titris (Laneri 2007, 2010; see also Nishimura, Chapter 3 In this volume).
World History
