Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Anti-authoritarian Cities

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted September 5, 2007.


Archaeologists have discovered that Brak, a Syrian city and one of the oldest urban areas in the world, was built in a way that completely defies conventional wisdom about how cities grow.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Archaeologists have discovered that one of the oldest urban areas in the world was built in a way that completely defies conventional wisdom about how cities grow. Last week, a group of researchers working in Syria published a paper in Science about a 6,000-year-old city called Brak, a once-thriving urban center in northern Mesopotamia (now northern Syria, near its border with Iraq). It has long been believed that cities begin as dense centers that grow outward into suburbs. Brak, however, began as a dispersed group of settlements that formed a rough ring shape and gradually grew inward to form an urban center that boasted a massive temple and a thriving import-export trade in tools and pottery.

Built sometime between 4200 and 3900 B.C.E., Brak eventually grew to 130 hectares, making it one of the largest known cities of its era, surpassed in size only by Uruk in southern Mesopotamia. Long buried under a tell -- a hill of accumulated debris and layers of urban development -- Brak's early history has only recently been revealed. Archaeologists are racking their brains to figure out why the place doesn't follow known patterns of city growth.

Harvard anthropologist Jason Ur, one of the researchers investigating Brak, writes that Brak's history might mean that urban development can be an emergent property of many immigrant groups coming together in the same region. Early cities might have spontaneously arisen via the development of a handful of neighboring villages. This flies in the face of older theories, which hold that cities develop when a ruling elite or a set of dominant institutions creates a dense, hierarchical city center whose culture and populations spread outward from it.

Brak reflects a "bottom-up" model of city evolution, in which a central political power is built slowly out of diverse cultural interests. According to Ur and his colleagues, Brak's layout "suggests both dependence on but some autonomy from the political power on the central mound ... This pattern suggests a greater role for noncentralized processes in the initial growth of Brak and lesser importance for centralized authority."

Short of hopping into a time machine, we'll never know for certain if Brak's layout reflects its citizens' attitudes toward centralized authority or not. What we do know, however, is that not all cities develop in the same way. More important, we now have social scientific theories to explain why that might be -- theories that can help us understand urban development in the contemporary world as well. Cities today could be evolving from decentralized areas, out of geographically dispersed groups that do not view themselves as subject to one dominant set of institutions.

Brak might be an example of how cities would grow if neighborhoods had more social and political autonomy. What if, for example, we considered a city to be a federation of neighborhoods rather than a downtown with satellite suburbs? Would that be the foundation for an anti-authoritarian cityscape?

To answer, let's contemplate a possible modern-day version of Brak: Silicon Valley, a region of dispersed urban centers that have formed a loose economic federation via the computer industry and proximity to freeways. Residents of Silicon Valley may not consider the area to be one city, but it's very possible that people excavating the toxic remains of Silicon Valley 6,000 years from now will interpret the area as a single urban unit.

Like Silicon Valley dwellers, residents of Brak may have thought of themselves as living in a series of linked villages, united by nothing more than a system of commerce and a set of roads. Does this mean that authority in Brak was truly decentralized? Maybe the urban development of Brak belies a deeper truth, which is that centralized authority does not always reveal itself via tall buildings at a city's core. An entire region may bow to the authority of an economic system that stratifies it into rich and poor, and yet never have a common culture. Decentralized urban spaces are not necessarily anti-authoritarian ones.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: cities, governance, authoritarianism, archaeology

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who wonders if Google has a time-displaced satellite office in Brak.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Interesting article!
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Signs, perhaps, of future hopes. Unfortunately, in the Age of Capital, such a development would simply be impossible. The trajectories of city growth and planning as it moves outward are ruled more by exclusivity than inclusivity and sections and sub-urbs develop in 'gated' and enclosed ways and relate to the wider environs with distrust and hostility, only participating in order to secure their own benefits. It's individualism in a communal style.

Organic development of communities into a city perhaps is possible in the dwindling rural areas of the country. Ah, but the price of Real Estate becomes prohibitive! Development nowadays is technochratic and profit oriented instead. Kind of like Iraq: raze it to the ground and demolish it, erase all past communities and community and, from the ground up, construct a network of cities and towns in line with the principles of Milton Friedman and F Hayek. Quite different paradigms since those 'primitive' and 'backward' times! Manufacture the City and plant consumers in it -- only then will it 'grow' to the intense delight of all those investors, share-holders, managers and owners and bankers who reside in all different places all over the globe in their gated communities and sub-urban land-scapes all safe and comfy savoring the Best of Times. One wonders what, thousands of years from now, archaeologists will find as evidence of our own enlightened and advanced times! I'm sure a couple of McDonald's wrappers and building signs and such will solidify and petrify enough to give those poor guys theoretical paroxysms!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smells like conurbation to me
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Sep 6, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting indeed but hardly groundshaking in terms of urbanism history. Cities have diverse origins and the conurbation of villages is one of the oldest ones. Sometimes a powerful village grew and absorbed nearby settlements like Rome did. But examples much closer to the one described in the article can be found specially in Greece, where pre-helenistic villages united to form Polis, many of them later becoming cities. Sparta was a polis that never really became a city, but Athens did. There you have a city that grew from a couple of villages uniting, who erected a common acropolis and agora and that have had continuous existence to present day.

Most succesful cities werent planned but instead appeared to satisfy the needs of an area's inhabitants. And the form they take respond to such needs and the advantages terrain and technology offer. In western culture, our idea of city come from the medieval castle/monastery-->burg-->walls-->suburb scheme (even tho many examples differ). But that was just a response to the political and technological situation of Europe back then. Such cities emanate from a strong power, military or spiritual (or economic in the case of cities who grew around markets or harbours), but wherever such power wasnt present, villages would unite to create it.

I dont know if he's translated into english, but Chueca-Goitia's "Breve historia del urbanismo" (brief history of urbanism) is a good essay about the city.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smells like conurbation to me Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Smells like conurbation to me Posted by: temptemptemp
» RE: Smells like conurbation to me Posted by: El Hombre Malo
It Takes Villages
Posted by: LB_AIA on Sep 6, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The growth of cities from central origins is common in European city development, and those settlements that were a result of its expansion in empires and trade routes. China has a long history of defensive villages that grew into dense cities, as does South America. However, in Africa, the patterns of migration did not follow these models, see "A History of South Africa" by Leonard Thompson. They were much more fluid, and populations intermingled as agrarian groups and hunter-gatherers, over a much longer historical period because of the human origins in this continent. Until the Portuguese exploration in the 1400's impacted the regional settlements in the river areas, the structure of human habitation was dispersed village associations. Since the human population had not reached the limits of its resources, the model of central development didn't occur, and the levels of intense development required to support ruling and administrative classes weren't necessary. However, this is not anti-authoritarian because the social structure is tribal, and the authority was embedded in familial structures that pitted stronger families against other family groups. It's just a different organizational structure that reflects the relative footprint of human resource consumption within the environment. The footprint was much smaller in the case of Africa. See "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using a Female Lens on Non-Authoritarian Community
Posted by: odcherenow on Sep 8, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is wise to apply the lens of female cultural anthropoligists and relational theoreticians to explore how a collection of autonomous and (assumed) diverse communities, half of which would have been female, might view and use a gathering place situated at their center. There is extensive research to show that women organize in community in ways different to men. (from Margaret Mead to Jean Baker Miller and Jean Shinoda Bolen and me) Collaboration and cooperation are valued more than hierarchically structured dominance models. It cannot be assumed that women in that time would have had the low influence on the culture and it's structure and operation that we now have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agricultural vs nomadic mindsets
Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand on Sep 8, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a truly inovative look at the genesis of cities, check out what Robyn Davidson, the award-winning author who studies nomadic cultures, has to say about the developement of cities as a result of the growing and hording of food. Here are segments of her magnificent essay in the publication, Quarterly Essay, titled, "No Fixed Address: Nomands and the Fate of the Planet." Her thesis is based on her unique viewpoint as someone who has observed the lifestyles of nomads, who have their own system of self-sufficiency outside of the systems built by "civilized" cultures. She posits that the agricultural revolution, with its denaturing of the land to grow low-nutrition level foods, lead to the need for infrastructure of the laborers who worked the fields, the hording and distribution of the gathered food that created a hierarchical system of wealth, the building of walls to keep out foragers and others, and so on, "finally to the wild consumerism of late capitalism."
What is left out of the radio transcript is the key to the essay: the values and viewpoints of nomadic cultures that are worth looking at and adapting as an alternative to the ultimately self-destructive pathway we have been following for these thousands of years.
"So what are the qualities that nomadic cultures tend to encourage? It seems to me that they are the humanistic virtues. The world is approached as a series of complex interactions, rather than simple oppositions, connecting pathways rather than obstructive walls. Nomads are comfortable with uncertainty and contradiction. They are cosmopolitan in outlook, because they have to deal with difference, negotiate difference. They do not focus on long-term goals so much as continually accommodate themselves to change. They are less concerned with the accumulation of wealth and more concerned with the accumulation of knowledge. The territorial personality - opinionated and hard-edged - is not revered. Tolerence, which accommodates itself to things human and changeable, is. Theirs are Aristotelian values of "practical wisdom" and balance. Adaptability, flexibility, mental agility, the ability to cope with flux. These traits shy away from absolutes, and strive for an equilibrium that blurs rigid boundaries."
The entire essay blew my mind when I picked it up while travelling in Australia last year. She exquisitely destribes the Aboriginal Dreaming as an "astonishing intellectual feat," and aptly sums up the differences in mindsets she is describing with this:
"Not just a knowledge of the landscape as a surface of separate things, but an engagement with the deeper processes and patterns and connections between things. Patterns, connections, pathways: these are emphasised. Agricultural world-views shift that emphasis to abstract geometry, division and separation, boundaries."
Now this is revolutionary thinking!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sounds a whole lot... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Here's an interesting thought:
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Sep 9, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I had to help build a new civilization, or just figure out a way for a lot of refugees to live after, say, the collapse of Western civilization, I might try something different.

What might work better than the civilization that self-destructed is a bunch of separate, autonomous "villages", perhaps each with its own central theme, like art here, construction there, mining and raw materials over there and so on. Inculcate a strong dislike of centralized authority and make certain it carries into each succeeding generation. Eventually the area might grow large and prosperous enough to require some centralized organization, but to avoid a takeover by people good at organization but otherwise non-productive, a central area might be dedicated to that, but would remain totally dependent for its continued existence on the outlying areas, each of which would contribute a nominal percentage for the organizational assistance of the central mound people; not enough for them to accumulate great wealth, but enough for them to have a good life.

Actually, I think I'd prefer a central depression instead of a mound, so that if they ever got serious delusions of rulership, the outliers could open a small dam and turn it into a central recreational water park. Without warning...

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]