For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations, please subscribe.
We humans have undergone major transformations in their social structures over the last several
millennia. At one time, we lived in small, mobile groups that were sustained on wild
plants and animals. Then we found areas where we could obtain those things while staying put,
so we created permanent settlements. We learned to domesticate local plants and animal species
and developed agriculture, which allowed more of us to settle down and to grow the populations
of our settlements. After a while, our farming societies transformed themselves into much larger,
more complex social systems: cities and states. Why people chose to live in larger settlements is
an important question, the answer to which is likely a combination of push and pull factors
such as access to markets and security. But have you ever wondered where cities first appeared in
the world and when? Well, that is what we are going to talk about today, as I share with you
the 5 earliest known cities in the world. Hi, I’m David Miano. I’m a scholar of ancient history, and
a teacher by trade, and on this channel I will do my best to give you the straight facts on what we
know about the ancient past without appealing to fanciful tales, science fiction, or conspiracies.
Now, when we talk about the earliest cities in the world, this is not the same as saying the
oldest cities in the world. That question is about which cities are still standing.
No, I am going to talk about the first ever cities, whether they are still there
or not. And I admit that I can only tell you the earliest ones that we know about.
It is possible and even probable that we will find others, but I can only share
with you the ones we have discovered so far. So this list is likely to change in future.
Now, I think it is necessary at the outset to define what I mean by “city,”
or else we might be looking for different things. People sometimes
just take it for granted what the words “city” or “urban society” mean,
but their opinions may differ. So let’s hammer that out first before we go looking.
Characteristics of the earliest cities were laid out by archaeologist Gordon Childe in a
paper called ‘The Urban Revolution’ back in 1950, and this paper has proved extremely influential
in the field of archaeology. Childe presented a now famous list of ten traits of early cities,
and these traits had to be deducible from archaeological data. When a settlement is dug up,
what can we look at to know whether it was a city? Can we distinguish it from a village? Although our
understanding of the details of the processes that created early cities in different parts of
the world has advanced considerably since Childe’s time, his basic model has held up remarkably well.
Five of Childe’s criteria are still recognized as indicative
of key developments in the rise of early complex societies. They are:
1. Size and population density. Cities are more extensive and more densely populated
than villages or towns. The question is how large and dense do they have to be?
This is not a hard and fast rule, but usually we expect a city to be at least 20 hectares in
size - some people suggest 30 or 40 and to have at least 10,000 people living in it.
2. A complex division of labor. In village life, people tend to make things for themselves.
In a city, there are full-time specialized craftspeople,
merchants, officials, transport workers, etc.
Since we can discover their shops and places of work, this can be discerned archaeologically.
3. The production of surplus by commoners to pay for government. This gets to the heart
of the economic and political transformations that brought about early complex societies. As
complexity increased, the leadership would require or demand payment for services they rendered.
This can be seen archaeologically in the remains of government storage facilities.
4. The formation of social classes. Often the civil, religious, and military leaders
and officials absorbed a major share of the concentrated surplus, creating elites.
5. Centralization of power. In egalitarian societies, power tends to be widely distributed
among the people, but when states form, centralization takes place, and this can be seen
archaeologically in residences built for rulers. Mind you, some have taken issue with this one,
saying that a city and a state are not necessarily the same thing. Couldn’t there be a city in which
power is still decentralized? Couldn’t there, for that matter, be a city without social classes?
There could, I suppose, be a large settlement without centralization or classes, but would it,
in fact, be a city? An urban center is characterized not simply by how large it is,
but also by how it functions. A political hierarchy is one of its characteristics, is
it not? This creates society’s elites. I suppose we could argue about that, but whatever the case,
most archaeologists see centralization of power as a sign of urban development.
6. Monumental architecture. This would be monumental public buildings and lesser
monuments - any structure displayed as a symbol or to convey a message.
Now monuments existed before cities. We see them in smaller settlements in the Neolithic period,
for example, but nearly all ancient cities, complex societies, have monuments. This is
because politically or economically powerful persons often sponsor monumental architecture
as an expression of their power. Civic-ceremonial buildings and layouts can be used to legitimize
power because they can be instruments for shaping people’s behavior, attitudes, and emotions.
7. Bureaucracy. Originally Childe just said “writing,” but we’ve broadened it to include
any kind of formal record-keeping. This is an important and universal characteristic of cities.
8. Regular trade over long distances. Trade, of course,
existed long before cities, but cities have the power to trade farther than villages do.
So evidence of regular foreign trade is a sign that we are looking at a city.
The last two points I am not sure are necessary, but I will share them with you,
as they are part of Childe’s list and still used by some to distinguish cities.
9. Development of practical sciences. This would be things like
math, geometry and astronomy, which did exist before cities,
but all cities seem to have them and to have made significant advancements in them.
10. Conceptualized and sophisticated styles of art. This is the least useful and relevant trait
for identifying cities. A city’s art is not necessarily more sophisticated than what is
found in Neolithic times, and does a city even need to have it? It is true that most ancient
rulers adopted an ideological program of visual representation that promoted their interests,
and if that is found somewhere, it’s a significant sign, but I think we can have a city without it.
All right. Now that we know what to look for,
what are the 5 earliest known cities in the world. We’ll start with…
5. Jericho c. 3000 BCE Some people might have thought this might
have been higher in the rankings, but although the site of Jericho is one of the earliest known
settlements in the world, it didn’t become a city until the Early Bronze Age. The site is located
in the Jordan Valley, about 10 km north of the Dead Sea. And yes, this is the place referred to
in the Bible, though we are looking at a time long before then. The name of the archaeological mound
is Tell es-Sultan. The earliest remains there go back to the Epipaleolithic period. During the
Neolithic period, it grew in size, and there even was a town wall built. It was one of the largest
settlements at the time. But then around the end of the 4th millennium BCE, a new people came into
the area, and after these immigrants arrived, Jericho developed into an urban site, with
the features we would expect. A new city wall was built on top of the old one. As far as I am aware,
no inscriptions were found here, but there is evidence of a city administration and bureaucracy
from the buildings. This is around 3000 BCE or so. It continued to grow and
reached its peak around 2700-2600 BCE. The city was destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze Age,
which is evidenced by its walls being destroyed by an earthquake. It will be rebuilt again.
4. Susa c. 3100 BCE The site of Susa lies in Iran
between the Lower Mesopotamian plains and the Zagros highlands. The earliest occupation at
Susa was during the late Neolithic period. Even at that time it achieved supreme cultic
and political significance in the region, with a massive monumental mudbrick platform
rising in a series of steps up to perhaps 20 m above the plain. Stamp seals also have been
found from this period. Then between 3700 and 3100 BCE, Susa grew to 25 hectares in size,
and massive monumental architecture on the acropolis was built. We see the first appearance
of sophisticated administrative devices only one step removed from early writing,
and figurative iconography found there points to the existence of high status males (or gods)
engaged in military acts and large-scale construction. But before it could fully urbanize,
something happened. There appears to have been a conflict between Susa and the neighboring
town of Chogha Mish. There are signs of a break in occupation at Susa, a hiatus period that ran about
3350 to 3140 BCE. And this break is followed by growth and a different range of material culture,
which includes writing. Well over a thousand clay tablets have been found, and the writing on these
tablets has been recognized as a precursor to Old Elamite, and so it is called Proto-Elamite.
Everything else was new too: the architecture, the pottery, the iconography. These differences
suggest the intrusion into Susa of a new elite group with strong connections to regions to the
east. It was at this time that Susa became a city, some time around 3100. By 3000, Susa was the only
major site of the entire region and up to half the population of the Susiana plain was living there.
3. Nekhen c. 3300 BCE Nekhen, known also by
its Greek name Hierakonpolis, is closely linked to the emergence of the Egyptian state
in the Predynastic Period. It was the seat of power for early rulers, and Narmer, the one who
united Upper and Lower Egypt for the first time, is believed to have had his royal residence there.
Nekhen today is in Upper, that is southern, Egypt, about 2 km west of the Nile river,
but we believe the river ran much closer to it in ancient times. Between 4000 and 3800 BCE,
the first settlers arrived there and formed a village. Over the next few centuries it grew
with increasing complexity, and between 3400 and 3200 it was in the process of urbanizing.
Remains of a ceremonial complex have been found there, monumental architecture,
evidence of a hierarchical structure, specialized production centers, and a perimeter wall.
Egyptian writing was beginning to develop during that period. By 3200 it had developed
into a major city. It prospered for a thousand years and then went into decline.
2. Uruk c. 3700 BCE The next city on the list I thought was going
to be #1 as I was preparing for this video, but it turns out not. I am talking about the city of Uruk
in southern Mesopotamia, known today as Warka. Between 4000 and 3800 BCE, Uruk grew to at least
70 hectares in size. It became a full-fledged city by about 3700. Uruk was walled and divided
into religious/administrative, residential and industrial sectors. It expanded to perhaps 250
hectares by 3100 BCE, if we include its dependent hamlets (and to about 600 hectares by 2800 BCE),
ten times the area of Susa in the same period, and the two major cultic precincts of Eanna and
Kullab, dedicated to Inana and Enlil respectively, were constructed with multiple monumental
buildings often interpreted as temples but more recently understood as public assembly halls
with associated cultic functions. The population may have numbered 20,000–40,000 individuals. In
the Early Dynastic Period, when cities had been popping up in many places at that time, it was
the largest city in the world. It is the city that the famed Gilgamesh is said to have ruled.
1. Brak c. 3800 BCE
For many years, I have said, “Uruk is the earliest known city, Uruk is the earliest known city.”
But as is often the case in history and archaeology, new evidence is found,
and we have to update. That seems to be the case here. Tell Brak, or just Brak for short, is a site
in northeastern Syria near the modern village of Tell Brak. We know the settlement was called
Nagar in ancient times, but that was later, and so we are not sure if it was called that
in the period we’re looking at. Evidence suggests that Brak urbanized slightly before Uruk,
at around 3800 BCE. By that time it was 130 hectares in size.
Large monumental architecture was built there, including what has been dubbed the Eye Temple,
because eye idols were found there, and there was a city wall and paved streets. There is evidence
of the storage of surplus goods, the existence of an elite class, and organized warfare.
Now admittedly, there is no evidence of writing here before it is seen in Uruk, though surely
there was a bureaucracy, and the population is still uncertain. It may not be that dense. Some
archaeologists are still hesitant about counting this as a city, but the more that is found there,
the more it looks like Brak was a city by 3800. I think Uruk will be toppled off its perch. Mind
you, Uruk is much bigger and more impressive, but it no longer looks like it was first.
Now some of you may be wondering why certain sites did not make this list. For example,
what about Gobekli Tepe? Surely it is far older than Tel Brak and Uruk. It is. But while it has
some of the traits we would be looking for - it’s of a fairly large size, it has monuments - it is
missing several of the characteristics we would expect for a city. We don’t even have an idea yet
of how many people resided there. In future, this will become clearer, but as of right now - the
evidence that it was a city is lacking. The same can be said about Catal Hoyuk - it was a certainly
a large Neolithic town - some even call it a proto-city, but it had under 10,000 people and
lacks some of other characteristics we are looking for, such as public buildings and social classes.
What about the cities of the Indus Valley Civilization? Some might point out that
many of these cities have their origins way back into the Neolithic period. This is true,
but as in the case of Jericho, urbanization at these sites took place later. In other words, many
of these started out as small settlements early on, but the urbanization of the Indus Valley sites
occurred, according to archaeologists’ best estimates around 2600 BCE, which is old,
but not quite old enough to make this list. I do acknowledge that some work done at the site of
Bhirrana has prompted a proposal that urbanization may have occurred earlier, perhaps even as
far back as 3000, which would place Bhirrana around the same time as Jericho on this list,
but this controversial date is supported only be some carbon dated samples,
and it conflicts with the dating of other sites, so corroborating evidence is needed.
Some might bring up the city of Eridu. Is this not in Mesopotamian legend the first of all cities?
Eridu was indeed an early city of Mesopotamia, and in legends, yes, it is spoken of as the
first city. But archaeological work done at Eridu has revealed that,
while it was settled in the Neolithic period and almost reached city status
in the late fourth millennium BCE, it had a setback before it could.
It did make a comeback, however, and its urbanization took place around 2900. So it just
missed the list. If you were wondering about the city of Nippur, it too urbanized around that time.
Some may wonder about Caral in Peru. Peru is certainly a spot where an early state society
arose independently of any others. There are six parts of the world where this happened,
as far as we know. Most other cities came from preexisting ones. But Caral
urbanized around 2600 BCE, so it doesn’t quite make the list.
Have you ever heard of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture? It was a prehistoric culture
located in modern day Moldova, with parts in Ukraine and Romania.
Well, several of its settlements, which were built between 4000 and 3500 BCE,
were very, very large. The site of Talianki is estimated to have housed 15-20,000 people.
The site of Maidanets is estimated to have some 29,000 people. If we were just going by size,
they would have made the list and would have rivaled Uruk, but they lack other
features we would expect of cities, such as monumental architecture and record-keeping.
Finally, I should mention Hamoukar in Syria, which is a settlement roughly
contemporary with Tel Brak. Some have referred to it as a city, and it was
after 3000. In the mid fourth millennium, it was definitely a prosperous and important town,
but at 15 hectares at that time, it is a little too small to make the list.
If you think I left an important one out, please let me know in the comments below.
If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up. Thank you for watching!
You might like my little e-booklet,
"Why Ancient History Matters. It's designed to persuade people that the subject is important,
even in the modern world. You might also wish to use it to help spread the word,
so feel free to share it with someone you know. It's free for anyone who wants it. I've
left the link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy. Catch you later!