The movement to cities was more likely the result of an arms race rather than preference. Most anthropological evidence points to deterioration in quality of li

The movement to cities was more likely the result of an arms race rather than preference. Most anthropological evidence points to deterioration in quality of life (e.g. diet, height, disease, teeth, inequality) when comparing hunter-gatherers and city dwellers. Larger populations, specialization of labor, and fortifications made city-states militarily superior to small bands of hunter-gatherers and allowed cities to dominate a surrounding region (at least until the modern horse). When a region was depleted of wild game then cities and their croplands were the most reliable source of food. Armies from city states would not infrequently raid and capture smaller groups of humans and bring them back to cities as slaves. So cities were likely a forced choice, as smaller nomadic groups were forceably absorbed into the domains of city-states or repelled toward less hospitable lands.