Anthropology 327
Dr. Knell
05/18/2018
A Review of V. Gordon Childe’s The Urban Revolution
One thing the different sciences have in common is the act of classifying things into
categories. It is easy to be confused at first glance when looking at two seemingly similar things,
and not recognize the contrasting qualities between them. For instance, in biological
anthropology, we use taxonomy to put different organisms into groups. People commonly think
that monkeys and chimpanzees belong to the same species, but anyone that has taken an
Anthropology 101 class knows that these are two very different animals belonging to discrete
species officially breaking off at the superfamily taxon (Park 2012). Classifying things into
different categories gives researchers the ability to view the studied items as varying entities, and
allows them to see their dissimilarities more clearly. Studying ancient groups of people have
shown to be no different; archaeologists have found ways to separate societies using sets of
criteria to help them better understand the type of community they once shared. V. Gordon
Childe may be the most well-known for creating such a list, which has given researchers a way
to classify a body of people as a civilization. In his article, The Urban Revolution, he carefully
outlined ten separate criteria that he believed made up a civilization. He argued that all societies
that met these criteria were urban cities or civilizations, and if they lacked in any area, they were
simply to be distinguished. While some researchers have come to find flaws in his list, many still
utilize it as a standard tool for their analyses.
In the following paragraphs, I will rank V. Gordon Childe’s criteria in the order that I
believe is most pertinent to the organizing of a civilization. There are items that he listed that I
feel are extremely important to what makes an urban city, and there are ones I think aren’t as
necessary or crucial. While I do agree that the collection of these criteria is significant, there are
1
, indeed some examples of societies in the past that do not meet every item on the list but should
still be considered a civilization.
The first criterion I would like to consider is the growth of population. Before the urban
revolutions of cities, societies were mainly foraging in small groups. They were often egalitarian,
which meant they had no real class distinctions, and everyone contributed to the well-being of
the group. They were also nomadic, so they only stayed in places temporarily. During the Middle
Stone Age, people began developing semi-permanent villages that required a more sedentary
lifestyle. This meant they would need to find a means to subsist in one place and support a
growing population. As humans began to grow accustomed to this conduct, they began to use
agriculture to feed themselves. Domesticating plants and animals led to the rapid increase of
food production, which in turn led to higher populations. Civilizations would never have come
about if humans had not discovered intensive agriculture, and with the ability to support so many
more people in one place, they formed urban cities. We see this transition in Abu Hureya, where
people began as foragers, and developed in the first massive city in 7300 BC (Knell 2018g).
Although Catalhoyuk at that time was not a civilization, we can see the process of changing
subsistence methods leading to high population growth.
Following population growth, the existence of class distinction is the next most important
step in the organization of a civilization. Childe discusses this in two separate criteria: first with
defining middle classes, and second with ruling classes. According to Childe, the middle class
was an essential unit due to its members not contributing to the subsistence of a society.
Generally, in the past, all members would farm, hunt or gather, but the middle class participated
in other ways. This group was made up of scribes, artisans, soldiers, merchants, etc. (Knell
2018b). It is also important to note that we the middle-class workers did not exchange their
goods or services directly with peasants; the ruling class oversaw food distribution. This group of
2
Dr. Knell
05/18/2018
A Review of V. Gordon Childe’s The Urban Revolution
One thing the different sciences have in common is the act of classifying things into
categories. It is easy to be confused at first glance when looking at two seemingly similar things,
and not recognize the contrasting qualities between them. For instance, in biological
anthropology, we use taxonomy to put different organisms into groups. People commonly think
that monkeys and chimpanzees belong to the same species, but anyone that has taken an
Anthropology 101 class knows that these are two very different animals belonging to discrete
species officially breaking off at the superfamily taxon (Park 2012). Classifying things into
different categories gives researchers the ability to view the studied items as varying entities, and
allows them to see their dissimilarities more clearly. Studying ancient groups of people have
shown to be no different; archaeologists have found ways to separate societies using sets of
criteria to help them better understand the type of community they once shared. V. Gordon
Childe may be the most well-known for creating such a list, which has given researchers a way
to classify a body of people as a civilization. In his article, The Urban Revolution, he carefully
outlined ten separate criteria that he believed made up a civilization. He argued that all societies
that met these criteria were urban cities or civilizations, and if they lacked in any area, they were
simply to be distinguished. While some researchers have come to find flaws in his list, many still
utilize it as a standard tool for their analyses.
In the following paragraphs, I will rank V. Gordon Childe’s criteria in the order that I
believe is most pertinent to the organizing of a civilization. There are items that he listed that I
feel are extremely important to what makes an urban city, and there are ones I think aren’t as
necessary or crucial. While I do agree that the collection of these criteria is significant, there are
1
, indeed some examples of societies in the past that do not meet every item on the list but should
still be considered a civilization.
The first criterion I would like to consider is the growth of population. Before the urban
revolutions of cities, societies were mainly foraging in small groups. They were often egalitarian,
which meant they had no real class distinctions, and everyone contributed to the well-being of
the group. They were also nomadic, so they only stayed in places temporarily. During the Middle
Stone Age, people began developing semi-permanent villages that required a more sedentary
lifestyle. This meant they would need to find a means to subsist in one place and support a
growing population. As humans began to grow accustomed to this conduct, they began to use
agriculture to feed themselves. Domesticating plants and animals led to the rapid increase of
food production, which in turn led to higher populations. Civilizations would never have come
about if humans had not discovered intensive agriculture, and with the ability to support so many
more people in one place, they formed urban cities. We see this transition in Abu Hureya, where
people began as foragers, and developed in the first massive city in 7300 BC (Knell 2018g).
Although Catalhoyuk at that time was not a civilization, we can see the process of changing
subsistence methods leading to high population growth.
Following population growth, the existence of class distinction is the next most important
step in the organization of a civilization. Childe discusses this in two separate criteria: first with
defining middle classes, and second with ruling classes. According to Childe, the middle class
was an essential unit due to its members not contributing to the subsistence of a society.
Generally, in the past, all members would farm, hunt or gather, but the middle class participated
in other ways. This group was made up of scribes, artisans, soldiers, merchants, etc. (Knell
2018b). It is also important to note that we the middle-class workers did not exchange their
goods or services directly with peasants; the ruling class oversaw food distribution. This group of
2
