Mesopotamia has been called the "heart of cities" and this is due to the fact that Mesopotamia is the oldest urban civilization in the entire world as of the 4th millennium BC (van de Mieroop 1997:1). In the 3rd millennium BC most of the Mesopotamian population was urban. Cities were the political centers of Mesopotamia and played roles as seats of the gods in Mesopotamian religion and as centers for local and long-distance trade and commerce. Since the cities have mainly been excavated, it is possible to see the main features that all cities should ideally have and be able to see a common layout. Maps such as the one from Nippur dating back to c. 1300 BC, as well as “The Description of Babylon,” which contains names of streets, temples and neighborhoods of the city. All this evidence allows us to imagine an idealized plan of a Mesopotamian city. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The city and the surrounding hinterland were mutually dependent as the city's inhabitants were engaged in activities other than food production. The surrounding countryside produced a surplus, which allowed the specialization of the city (Pollock 1999: 47). Date palms and other fruits grew in gardens and orchards owned by urban residents. Kings planted exotic trees in orchards around the city center, planting exotic species collected from conquests. It is attested that King Ashurnasirpal planted forty-one species of trees from the countryside of Kalhu, his capital. There were also suburbs around the city. These areas were partly residential and were occupied when the population of the city center exceeded its walls and when the city was safe from violent attacks. Little is known about the suburbs as they do not promise the spectacular discovery of monumental buildings and have since been plowed over by continuous agriculture (van de Mieroop 1997:69). Tell Taya is the only suburb in Mesopotamia to be studied in depth. It contained residential and industrial areas but no public buildings, which was limited to the walled city center. Industry was located on the outskirts of cities because water and access to resources were better, there was more space not being confined within a wall and air pollution affected citizens less (van de Mieroop 1997 :71). Outside the city walls was where long-distance trade took place. placed in the ports known as Karum. In the south these were located on waterways and in the north on land routes passing through cities. The only fully excavated Karum is found in Anatolia at Nesha, but this can be seen to reflect what the Mesopotamian Karums were like when they were founded by Mesopotamian merchants. The Karum contained workshops and dwellings and had its own defensive structures. It was outside the city walls, so it became a neutral area that allowed people from different regions to interact and trade without the supervision of urban political powers (van de Mieroop 1997:67). Due to the debris accumulated from the collapse of the previous brick construction, the urban center was higher than the surrounding countryside (van de Mieroop 1997:72). A wall surrounded this elevation. The emphasis on walls in Mesopotamian art reveals the city wall as a key feature of the city and Mesopotamian ideology. The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the walls of Uruk as an enormous construction, and excavations have confirmed these claims by revealing that the walls were 9.5 kilometers long and included nearly a thousand semicircular towers (van de Mieroop 1997:75). All representations ofcities include walls; Assyrian palace reliefs depict fortification rings with towers at regular intervals. Pictorial depictions of violence and walls such as the Stele of the Vultures suggest that the city walls were built for protection. However, a huge element of monumentality was incorporated into the city walls. At Abu Salabikh the wall was fifteen meters wide. There was no need to perform defensive functions since much narrower cities were discovered. The walls symbolized the union of people within the city and the creation and distinction between those inhabitants and the outside world. Rulers who boast of conquest always claim to destroy the city walls, a huge part of the monumentality of a city. The city center housed the cities' monumental buildings. In Mesopotamian religion these religious buildings had to remain on the same site. At Eridu, sixteen consecutive sanctuaries were found in the same place from the 6th to the 3rd millennium (van de Mieroop 1997:73). In addition to this accumulation of deposits, the temples were raised on mud brick platforms which were rebuilt over time, making the shrines increasingly taller. These were known as Ziggurats (Pollock 1999:50). This meant that temples and shrines acquired a prominent and monumental position in the city's landscape, being visible from all parts of the city and the surrounding countryside. Although the temple was a visual centerpiece for the city, it usually occupied land on the edge of the city, as in Kish and Sippur. Excavations at Tell al-Ubaid and other sites suggest that the noncentric location of temples began in the early days of urban planning. By the mid-3rd millennium the temples with their elaborate constructions and reinforced, recessed facades had become “working temples” containing warehouses, kitchens, and areas where craft activities took place (Pollock 1999:51). Palaces were the second monumental building in cities, and were distinguishable from temples by their fortified nature. The palaces were also placed on mounds visible from the surrounding area and their massive construction added emphasis to the royal power they possessed (van de Mieroop 1997:78). The palaces contained residential complexes along with warehouses, workshops and kitchens and some rooms were intended for ceremonial and administrative functions. Palaces and temples were normally located at a significant distance from each other, as at Uruk. Where they occupied the same site the palaces occupied a space to the side of the temple. These two major institutions appear to have been symbolically separated, and the location of palaces and temples in Mesopotamian cities reflects a pattern of opposition between religion and administration (Stone 1995: 239). In the north, the Neo-Assyrian cities of the first millennium brought significant changes to this model of urban planning. In cities, such as Nineveh, the citadel mounds contained the temple and palace complex in a single architectural unit. This unit was still on the edge of the city, near the wall, as before. The physical separation that had occurred in these cities was now between administration and warfare, the temple had lost its prominent position as the focal point of the city. Dur-Sharrukin was founded by Sargon II and contained a ziggurat and a palace in a single complex, raised on an artificial platform, below in the rest of the citadel were the administrative buildings and elite residences. A second fortified mound on the other side of the city was the imperial arsenal and contained weapons and booty (Stone 1995:245). The internal layout of the Mesopotamian city was organic and contained dense architecture, alleys and winding streets (Pollock 1999: 48). The cities were divided into monumental and residential neighborhoods by systems of roads and canals, these.