1
   

Finds suggest: it took villages to make a city

 
 
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 02:17 am
Quote:
A new theory of ancient cities

They didn't necessarily grow from a center, archeologists say; Tell Brak excavations in Syria indicate villages cohered inward.


By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 1, 2007

Excavations at a 6,000-year-old archeological mound in northeastern Syria called Tell Brak are providing an alternative explanation for how the first cities may have grown.

Archeologists have thought cities generally began in a single small area and grew outward -- but evidence indicates that the urban area at Tell Brak was a ring of small villages that grew inward to become a city.

The finds, reported Friday in the journal Science, provide insight into political development in the region.

"Urbanism does not appear to have originated with a single, powerful ruler or political entity," said archeologist Jason Ur of Harvard University, who led the research. "Instead, it was the organic outgrowth of many groups coming together."

The city, whose name is unknown, was in the ancient empire of Mesopotamia, which encompassed what is now southern Iraq and northern Syria. The city of Uruk in southern Iraq was thought to have been the oldest city in the world, but discoveries at Tell Brak suggest that it may have developed at the same time.

Legend holds that the great leader Gilgamesh built Uruk. That story has long served as a model for the development of early cities.

Studying bits of pottery, bones and other artifacts at Tell Brak, Ur and his colleagues concluded that sometime about 4200 BC to 3900 BC, people lived in six clusters, each 5 to 10 acres, scattered around what became the central mound.

Ur speculated that the founders, perhaps immigrants, warily kept their distance from their neighbors -- but that trepidation eased and the population grew denser and expanded inward, until by 3400 BC, Tell Brak was a full-fledged urban center of about 325 acres.

The finds, the researchers wrote, suggest that the study of early urban areas "must accommodate multiple models for the origins of cities."

[email protected]

Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 615 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Sep, 2007 02:18 am
http://i8.tinypic.com/6bvx5s5.jpg
Composite created from map images at Google Maps. (Source: whyfiles.org)


http://i18.tinypic.com/66we45y.jpg
Source: BBC

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12562/dn12562-1_450.jpg
Changes in pottery over the years allowed researchers to develop a timeline for the Tell Brak's expansion

Source: New Scientist
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 06:55 pm
I think this finding is etched in our collective memory (or rather the genetic hard wiring in our brains), since I think many people are not as comfortable in another neighborhood, to the degree of comfort they have in their own neighborhood. The other neighborhood being that ancient "other" village.

I don't know if this should really be such a big discovery, since in cities, neighborhoods are named after the original villages that the neighborhoods were?
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 08:17 pm
Well Walter, you have played Die Siedler von Catan, haven't you?
You have your villages, and you buy your bricks and woods, and make a Strasse between them, right?

It never occured to me that ancient cities were built diversely. It worked the same way in Rome and in Tenochtitlan.

What must give us food for thought is that several modern cities were built the other way around.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Sep, 2007 10:13 pm
Foofie wrote:

I don't know if this should really be such a big discovery, since in cities, neighborhoods are named after the original villages that the neighborhoods were?

It is, since previously (and according to findings until now) it was thaught to have worked the other way around.

At those times, that is.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 08:23 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foofie wrote:

I don't know if this should really be such a big discovery, since in cities, neighborhoods are named after the original villages that the neighborhoods were?

It is, since previously (and according to findings until now) it was thaught to have worked the other way around.

At those times, that is.


I'd think this discovery is as important as realizing the Earth is not flat, or the Earth goes around the Sun. Not an iota less important.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Finds suggest: it took villages to make a city
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 08:02:12