Archaeologists find new origin of ancient cities
Last Modified: Friday, August 31, 2007 at 9:00 p.m.
Excavations at a 6,000-year-old archaeological mound in northeastern Syria called Tell Brak are providing an alternative explanation for how the first cities may have grown.
Archaeologists have thought that many cities began in a single small area and grew outward, but evidence at Tell Brak indicates it was originally a ring of small villages that grew inward as it became a city -- the opposite of the conventional viewpoint.
The finds provide new insight into political development in the region.
"Urbanism does not appear to have originated with a single, powerful ruler or political entity," said archaeologist Jason Ur of Harvard University, who led the research reported Friday in the journal Science. "Instead, it was the organic outgrowth of many groups coming together."
The city, whose name is unknown, was located in the ancient empire of Mesopotamia, which encompassed what is now southern Iraq and northern Syria. The nearby city of Uruk in southern Iraq was thought to have been the oldest city in the world, but discoveries at Tell Brak suggest it may have developed contemporaneously with Uruk.
Legend holds that the great leader Gilgamesh built the city of Uruk, and that story has long served as a model for the development of early cities.
Studying potsherds, bones and other artifacts at Tell Brak, Ur and his colleagues concluded that sometime about 4200 B.C. to 3900 B.C., habitation consisted of six distinct clusters, each with an area of five to 10 acres, scattered around what is now the central mound.
Over the next several hundred years, the population grew more dense and expanded inward until, by 3400 B.C., Tell Brak was a full-fledged urban center spreading over an area 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."
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Next Article in News-Home
-
Petaluma planning controversy won't die
After months of discord and accusations of political maneuvering, the Petaluma City Council’s recent vote to merge two planning boards into one — removing all but three of the 12 sitting members — appeared to put an end to the...

Comments
Only moderator-approved comments are shown on this page. To see all comments, please visit the forum. We at PressDemocrat.com created these forums as a place where our community can exchange ideas on news issues and express their thoughts. Please be courteous and respectful. Avoid expletives, false statements, veiled or overt threats and personal attacks. Stay on topic. (View full Terms of Service.)Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
August 15, 2009 3:00:29 pm
RE: Link
Makes sense, actually--urbanization first resulted from urban (or village) sprawl...in other words,like most other attributes of society, it starts organically and grows accidentally, unplanned. This makes more sense than imputing somebody envisioning a city after never having seen one, don't you think?
Look how the Denver/Jeffco area grew...I know, I know, but it's the same thing exactly--and we've had cities for thousands of years!
August 15, 2009 3:15:02 pm
Or, some could have been a coming together - people building their homes/shops/farms in the least travel distance to any of the villages. And some could have been a single point expanding, maybe as more wanted to get in on the hunt with a master hunter, or gathered around some source of food or water. And grew out as more people were born or moved into the area. No need for there to be a single reason for urbanization.
Post a comment | View all comments