Most of peoples impulses are right.
We get the word civic from the same source as the work civil. Civic, civil, city are words sharing the same broad domain of meaning.
They used to speculate that cities may have arisen for economic reasons, and this notion served the one percent quite well. It’s actually not true though, and in fact, if they served only as a means to manage resources, they would not have arisen at all.
The city market used to be as much or more about socialization then buying things. Yes. The market was in the central square of the town, and anyone living near town would come in for the “Farmer’s market”. Originally, it was just a way to trade things and meet everyone else half way.
Also to hear the latest news. Which was the role of the early entertainers. You would listen to rhymes and songs because they held information. They were telling meaningful stories.
This was society for a time, but cities arose well before even then. In the era where humanity was constructing only rudimentary shelters, and maintaining only modest patches of crops (more like loosely gathered wild foodstuff than actual systematic farming), they built cities even then. As far as any form of record or relic shows, the oldest city is prehistoric. They found it recently in Turkey. In the early age, the cities were sacred places.
Those seem to be markers for civility. Relics show civility and even cave drawings do, a need to pass on history. And yes, the first cities arose near mountains, near the same caves that painting would have been done in.
What people consider civil is what they use to contrast what they call barbarians. Yes, that was when things got fuzzy.
Cultures that are not civil don’t last very long. The Vikings became farmers. Indeed, they did. In fact, the cities were sacred places in part because they were often also necropoli, cities of the dead. Universally, the land in which your ancestors remains were buried was seen as sacred territory.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.