[96]The same applies to the “urban revolution”—a phrase often used to describe the birth of civilization. This term has been introduced by V. Gordon Childe, whose great achievement has been the replacement of period-distinctions, which had only typological significance, by others which suggest socio-economic differences. However, in the later editions of his _Dawn of European Civilization_, in _Man Makes Himself_, and in _What Happened in History_, his point of view has assumed a Marxist slant which applies to ancient Near Eastern conditions inappropriate categories. His recent article, “The Urban Revolution,” in _The Town Planning Review_, XXI (Liverpool, 1950), 3-17, and his recent L. T. Hobhouse Memorial Lecture, “Social Worlds of Knowledge” (London, 1949), seem to embody, however, a change of viewpoint. As regards the term “urban revolution,” it can in no way be applied to Egypt, as we shall see, even if we should accept it, with the qualifications stated in our text, for the transition from prehistory to history in Mesopotamia. [97]This matter has been studied by Professor Elizabeth Visser in her inaugural lecture “Polis en stad” (Amsterdam, 1947), who quotes Busolt-Swoboda, _Griechische Staatskunde_, II, 920 and also Zimmern, _The Greek Commonwealth_, 228: “Greek civilization is, in a sense, urban, but its basis is agricultural and the breezes of the open country blow through Parliament and the market place.” [98]G. M. Trevelyan, _English Social History_ (London, 1946), 28. [99]We have discussed elsewhere the feeling of anxiety which pervades Mesopotamian religion: _Kingship and the Gods_ (Chicago, 1948), 277-81. [100]_Journal of Near Eastern Studies_, V (1946), 137. [101]A. Deimel published and discussed the texts. See his “Die sumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeit Urukaginas und seiner Vorgänger,” _Analecta Orientalia_, II (Rome, 1931), 71-113. His pupil, an economist, published a study on which we have largely drawn: Anna Schneider, _Die Sumerische Tempelstadt_, “Plenge staatswissenschaftliche Beitrage,” IV (Essen, 1920). The Protoliterate tablets offer a sufficient basis for the view that the organization of Early Dynastic times continued in most respects that which was created at the beginning of Mesopotamian history. [102]The city god was, for political purposes, and often also as regards the importance of his temple, the chief god of the city. But “the chief god owned only his own temple’s land. His relationship to the other gods may most probably be compared to that of the headman of a village to other landowners and their holdings in the village.” (Thorkild Jacobsen in _Human Origins, An Introductory General Course in Anthropology, Selected Readings_, Series II (Chicago, 1946), 255. [103]Schneider, _op. cit._, 35.