Where I grew up narrow dirt road with bridge only one car could cross at a time was called a highway and wider paved road with bridge two semi-trucks could cross over at once was called a trail.
This is actually a tricky question to answer if you think about it. David mentioned a few more candidates at the end that didn't make the list, and I am sure there are others. I suppose the most important thing is the criteria for a city listed at the start. I always learn something watching this channel. WOA, you are smashing it on the sub count. I wish you continued success.
Great video! I love how you thoroughly walked through the criteria used to define cities. I wonder what modern cities would meet the same criteria and if they are consistent with attributes of ancient ones?
@@WorldofAntiquity Thanks for the intriguing video, I liked the first clarifying what we define as a city (archeological speaking), could you do the same for what constitutes a civilisation in a video, perhaps you already have?
I would expect so many similar channels to just get right to the list. But I so appreciate the importance of definition here, and everywhere on your channel. As always, great presentation. Thank you.
Also, a video that provides a timeline of ancient history would be immensely useful to those of us in need of an organizational structure. Clarifying the archeological and historical periodization terminology used among professionals would also be a great help.
As part of this, I would like to see a comparison of the different civilizations/areas of the worlds at a certain point in time to see the different levels of progress. It would be nice to pick several reference points. For instance, take the building of the pyramids at Giza. What is going on in Mesopotamia, Europe, India, China, the Americas, etc. at the same time?
@@casey10s The building of the pyramids at Giza was around 3200 B.C. here are a few other things that were happening about then: (3800 BC): Trypillian build in Talianki (Ukraine) settlement which reached 15,600-21,000 inhabitants. Was it a city? c. 3,600-2000 BC megalithic sites: Stenness (Orkney Islands Scotland) religious site, Callanish (Lewis isle Scotland), Brú na Bóinne and Carrowmore and Carrowkeel (Ireland) underground tomb sites, Ġgantija and Mnajdra sites (Malta), Domus de Janas (Sardinia), and other megalithic sites in Europe. (3500 BC): End of the African humid period possibly linked to the Piora Oscillation: a rapid and intense aridification event, which probably started the current Sahara Desert (and Arabia) dry phase and a population increase in the Nile Valley due to migrations from nearby regions. c. 3500 BC (or earlier) Neolithic farming wheat and barley/beer and raising (both middle eastern inventions) domestic cattle and pigs spreads to N Europe and Britain. DNA changes indicate people migration into N Europe, Britain and Ireland. DNA example of an inter-related ruling class across N Europe to Ireland. 3250 BC Paper Made Of Papyrus Reed - The first known paper was produced in Egypt. The central pulp of papyrus reed was split, dried and glued together. 3200 BC Hieroglyphic Writing - The Egyptians developed a system of writing known as Hieroglyphics in c.3200 BC. Hieroglyphics told the stories with pictographs. 3200 BC Sumerian Civilization Begins? - Around 3200 BC, a system of city-states developed along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. The Sumerians developed a loose confederation of the city-states. The states often fought against one another. (19 July, 3228 BC The traditionally accepted time that Krishna of India born, Avatar of god or a god in Hinduism/Dravidian Religion) c. 3100 BC traditional date Dwarka city (India), claimed home of Krishna to Hindus, sinks beneath the waves. c. 3100 BC?: Varna (Bulgaria) Necropolis: what have been claimed to be the earliest-known worked gold artifacts are manufactured c. 3100 BC?: Crete: Rise/beginning of Minoan civilization c. 3100 BC?: Ötzi: The final years of the Iceman's life (Austria/Italy) c. 3100 BC Stonehenge (England) started with small holes. It will not be finished until c. 2,400-2200 BC. about 3100 BC - milestone: 14 Million Earth Pop! WhooHoo!
@@jamisojo There is some controversy of when, but sure i will give you a timeline for 2600BC: c. 2900 BC-2300 BC corded ware culture (Yamnaya?) believed to originate Indo-European and Indo-Ayran languages spreads from Ukraine into N Europe (Bell Beaker culture?) and eastward to Persia/India (Oxus/BMAC?). Also cuneiform writing is invented in Sumer area. c. 2,600 BC(or 2589 BC?) first Pyramid built in Egypt; Scandinavia has a warm period. Caral Supe settlement in Peru; also last giant sloth dies in Americas? c. 2600-1900 BC Indus valley city civilization. Some lingams and yoni used in Hinduism are from this period. Possibly Dravidian Agamic non-Veda pre-Hinduism. Eventually 10% of the world pop - until their collapse. c. 2600-2334 BC: Early Dynastic period III. Dominion of the First Dynasty of Ur. The Royal Cemetery at Ur is constructed. c. 2600 BC: Reign of Akalamdug, king of Ur. c. 2600-2500 BC: The Instructions of Shuruppak, the earliest known literary texts, are created in Adab, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh. c. 2600 BC The Canaanites establish themselves in the region around what is now Jerusalem c. 2600 BC: Pre-Palace Period, phase I, in Crete (Mellersh 1970) c. 2600 BC - 2500 BC: Wild horses still provide hunting feasts in Denmark. (Clutton-Brock). Also around this time Rock drawings at Rødøy in Norway show the use of skis, and Bactrian Camel and Dromedary are domesticated in Central Asia. 2570 BC: Reigns of Uhub, king of Kish, and of En-hegal, king of Lagash. c.2500 BC The Epic of Gilgamesh, the cycle of poems preserved on clay tablets surviving from ancient Mesopotamia of the third millennium B.C. written. c. 2500 BC first humans arrived in Philippines. c. 2,400-1600 BC the Oxus Civilization (aka BMAC) in Asia arose. They are believed to be Fire-worshipers Indo-Arayans, as the later Iranians (Persians, Medes, & Parthians) were.
@@tommy-er6hh What defines a city ?. We have to use some kind of yardstick to answer that question. If you have sites that you think might be very early cities, refer to the criteria list and see how many match up. Even David said the last two on the list are open to interpretation, but all the others have to be there. If they are....you have a city !....peace to ya bud.
"Earliest cultures" is a bit weird. "Culture", as in, a system of knowledge and practices that is passed down from generation to generation, undoubtedly predates humans and is not unique to humans. Even some types of bird have "culture", in this sense, though I don't think that means it comes from our common reptillian ancestors: The ability to develop and maintain different "cultures" in different populations might be one of those things that birds, cetacians, and apes evolved separately from each other by parallel evolution. I'm not sure if it's just one clade of birds (i.e., it may have developed more than once in birds) or if it's limited to apes and cetacians in mammals, though. I do remember hearing that Meerkats (South African Mongooses) can communicate colors between each other (not that that implies they remember communicated things for generations). It's also possible that I'm GREATLY underestimating how many animals have "culture", since it basically should be expected of any type of animal that has indefinite long term memory, communication of long-term-relevant knowledge and skills (as opposed to things like "a predator is here right now", which will matter little in the distant future), and a social pattern of individuals usually teaching the same kind of information to others as was taught to them (likely often parent to child).
@@Mr.Nichan Earliest cultures we know. I used the term because before there were civilizations like Sumeria or ancient Egypt, historians seem to refer to certain "cultures" or peoples. For example, see the "Halfan and Kubbaniyan culture" or the "Harifian culture." So it's not the same kind of "culture" you may be thinking about
That being said, the as-yet unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) question of when hominins first developed language (a communication system as theoretically unlimited in expression as modern human language) is very relevant to the development of "culture", since that increases the range of ideas that can be communicated between induviduals and thus passed on to future generations, and the ease of doing so, making it possible, or at least easier, for cultures to dramatically improve their knowledge and skill over many generations.
A fascinating video covering an interesting topic, with information presented clearly and without speculation or conspiracy. You, my friend, have just gained a new subscriber, and are likely to gain a few more when I show the people at work this video (I work in a museum dedicated to the Victorian era and although I’m the most interested in antiquity everyone else has an appreciation for it).
Great video! You should consider making a video listing the largest known settlements at different times in history. Like it would interesting to know what the largest settlement (without the rules defined in this video to be called a city) was in say 10,000BCE and then 9,000BCE, etc. Or maybe even older if we know that info.
Very fascinating video. The analysis of the criteria is very usefull. I'm a bit surprised by the lack of Chinese sites both on the Yangtze or the Yellow River, and this make me wish for a video comparison about timing and features of the six "original" state societies.
There's so much unknown. What about the interiors of Africa and the Nile valley. Just as Caral caught everyone off guard there's no reason why there couldn't be a new exciting discovery along any of the major world rivers
he seems very biased about Indian and Chinese civilization although IVC and Chinese civilization urban centres is date back to more then 3000 bc he never mentioned anything about them
Great video! As an urban geographer, these archeological definitions of what constitutes as a ‘city’ are very interesting to me. Some properties seem highly arbitrary, though I guess we need some clear cut boundaries to distinguish ‘villages’ and ‘towns’ from proper ‘cities’. The question of social and/or economic hierachary is especially thought provoking, as there seems to be a major difference between IS or OUGHT.
This is a really nice overview of the oldest accepted urban sites, and the specific criteria used to determine their status. Not sure I fully agree with the criteria, and the very old settlement of Jericho (walled, stone tower etc) is quite impressive, but any set of criteria, will be questionable, and arbitrary at its boundaries, and the list is a decent starting point. The only place where I question the exclusion is the Moldavian/Balkan sites. In the temperate climate it's very possible that they had monumental architecture and bureaucracy but made of materials that didn't preserve as well. Excluding them as cities based on a lack of clear evidence for those things despite clear evidence for their size strikes me as highly arbitrary (and possibly revealing the challenge in overthrowing convention) I'm also interested in the Tepe sites, as they are definitely larger than what has currently been excavated but there we absolutely need more evidence before being certain of where they fit on the sliding scale of development.
I personally think Boncuklu Tarla is more interesting then Göbekli Tepe (it leas 300 kilometers east of GT and is about a thousands years older but have so far gained little publicity) but I don't think either could be counted as a city. Jericho was pretty small so it is out too. Çatalhöyük is where the definition of a city really becomes important because it was rather large so if it was a city or not depends on your criteria what a city is. With Talianki and Maydanet it is a bit of the same thing. It is possible that the Vinča symbols, also known as the Danube script were an actual primitive written language and if that is proven that would force us to re-evaluate them and might get them on the list but as of now we don't have enough information to really put them on the list. They could certainly had wooden monuments that have not survived, if they actually had writing that should be enough to tip the scale. The Vinča symbols do seems to have a little in common with the Indus valley script who also only appear in short sentences we never been able to translate so they can possibly have some meaning, future finds might prove more there. Even Çatalhöyük was urbanized but we do need rules to determine what is a city and what is a town and just using size might not be good enough.
@@DianaAtena good points, but I'm not quite sure I would say "writing is necessary". I would phrase it as "a method of recordkeeping is necessary." It's highly questionable if the south American quipu's were fully equivalent to a writing system, but they were definitely a method of recordkeeping.
@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 We are leaning towards that they either lived there part of the year or permanently. That part of the site is not fully excavated though so it is a bit early to draw any final conclusion. Boncuklu Tarla is a thousand years older and it did have houses, temples and specialty building though so it is extremely likely Göbekli Tepe was similar, they are from the same general area and culture. So yeah, probably but we wont know for 100% until more of the site is excavated, so far they have only done 5% of it. That area of the world is extremely interesting since we have found a bunch of smaller Tepes from about the same time as well.
I agree that rigid adherence to an aging paradigm presents problems, like using the seating arrangements of the 17th Century French Parliament to describe modern political alignments.
I am glad that You mentioned Cucuteni-Tripillian cities. Most of presenters just overlook them. They were highly advanced by the using domesticated plants and animals. I think that Lower Danubian cultures from that time would soon join that list. Those like Vinča and related ones. It is highly possible that they even invented one of the oldest writing system. I wonder, why those highly advanced cultures just dissapeared at the beggining of the bronze age.
Yes, not really that much mystery there, the Indo-European migration was brutal. These late Neolithic societies weren't really warlike, for a long time they barely had walls around settlements. You see that gradually changing. Anyway, the cultures that were closest to the Indo-European homeland suffered the brunt of their expansion, with little time to adapt they were most likely wiped out or brutally integrated. The decrease in pottery quality is so huge. Not to mention that Eastern Europe areas were faced with multiple waves of migration. On the other hand there is a big delay until the Indo-Europeans reach Western Europe, 1500 years or even more compared to the first contacts with Cucuteni-Trypillia. Basically the changes traveled faster than the people, the cultures in the West were much better prepared to face them when they arrived. That's why you see a lot of them surviving, mingling or even assimilating Indo-European tribes, in Spain, Italy and other areas.
all early farming cultures were weak ate grain and were sick easy to wipe out by any warlike culture around usually naturally after first pandemic decimating such cities
I had a great conversation with some people on a Brian Forster picture on Instagram talking about the Kailasa being built earlier than 760 CE. I asked what evidence is there, someone told me common sense xD. Like what?!? That’s your evidence?!? Common sense?!? I died laughing xD
I enjoy watching Foerster vids but I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have a good idea of what he’s talking about I must acknowledge he has built an empire with his books and specially hidden Inca tours which is actually a tourist tour engine but if you have some college education in these areas of study you’ll notice his content is half ways a guessing game
We don't need common sense when we got nationalism 😎🇮🇳🇮🇳 I'm sorry on behalf of the BJP (ruling party) They have spread their cancer nationalism as a part of their dangerous agenda of opium that helps them keep ruling india while the economy goes in shambles.
This is a great lesson on how to even go about trying to answer this question as well learning the actual list. I would love to see a regional version of this list including India, China, Indonesia, South America etc. Also it is just as interesting to learn of the locations that did not make the list and why.
@@Pakiza-Ali lol they are included in India or Bharatvarsha (ancient Bharat, Pakistan didn't exist before 1947), firstly learn how we study history lol...there's a reason we call it Indus Valley civilization... and more so you people destroyed our ancient cities and didn't preserve them because of extremist because they don't belong to Islam which is ridiculous, bro read your own history which is not very much tbh
@@anupamraj3922 If Pakistan did not exist before 1947 what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947? Check your passport or better yur history books. Before 1947 all of us - Myanmar, Bengladesh, India, Pakistan were colony called BRITISH India ! And we call it name Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley and that is because Indus River is in Pakistan.
@@Pakiza-Ali lol sir, what do you even mean by if? such a brain w@ashed person you are, please first know what the meaning of indus is, and you people who read the wrong history and geography don't even know that Bharat existed way before, please start reading now, here are some tips for you sir, its humble request of mine to correct yourself and your generations to save them. India as a Geographical and Cultural Entity: The name "India" has ancient origins, deriving from the River Indus, which flows mainly through modern-day Pakistan. The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the earliest urban cultures, was located in this region around 3300-1300 BCE. Over millennia, the term "India" (from the Sanskrit "Sindhu" meaning river) has been used to refer to the subcontinent and its rich cultural, religious, and historical heritage. Misconceptions in the Statement:- Misconception 1: "If Pakistan did not exist before 1947, what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947?" The modern nation-states of Pakistan and India were indeed created in 1947. However, the concept of India as a geographical and cultural entity has existed for thousands of years. The term "India" was used in various historical texts and by various civilizations long before British colonization. For example, ancient Greek and Persian texts referred to the region as "India." Misconception 2: "Before 1947, all of us - Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan - were a colony called BRITISH India!" While it is true that Myanmar (then Burma), Bangladesh (then East Bengal), India, and Pakistan were under British control, they were not all part of "British India" in the same administrative sense. Myanmar (Burma) was administered as a separate colony from 1937, distinct from British India. Bangladesh was part of Bengal province in British India until the partition in 1947. Misconception 3: "And we call it Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley, and that is because the Indus River is in Pakistan." The Indus Valley Civilization is named after the Indus River, which flows through present-day Pakistan. The civilization itself spanned a larger area, including parts of modern-day India. Major sites such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro are located in Pakistan, but other significant sites are in India. Conclusion The region known as "India" has a long history predating British colonization. While modern political boundaries were drawn in 1947, the cultural and geographical identity of India has ancient roots. British India was a specific administrative unit under British rule, but the concept of India as a cultural and geographical entity existed long before and continues to exist today. Understanding these nuances helps clarify the historical context and the long-standing significance of the term "India" beyond its colonial history.
@@Pakiza-Ali lol sir, what do you even mean by if? such a brain w @ ashed person you are, please first know what the meaning of indus is, and you people who read the wrong history and geography don't even know that Bharat existed way before, please start reading now, here are some tips for you sir, its humble request of mine to correct yourself and your generations to save them. India as a Geographical and Cultural Entity: The name "India" has ancient origins, deriving from the River Indus, which flows mainly through modern-day Pakistan. The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the earliest urban cultures, was located in this region around 3300-1300 BCE. Over millennia, the term "India" (from the Sanskrit "Sindhu" meaning river) has been used to refer to the subcontinent and its rich cultural, religious, and historical heritage. Misconceptions in the Statement:- Misconception 1: "If Pakistan did not exist before 1947, what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947?" The modern nation-states of Pakistan and India were indeed created in 1947. However, the concept of India as a geographical and cultural entity has existed for thousands of years. The term "India" was used in various historical texts and by various civilizations long before British colonization. For example, ancient Greek and Persian texts referred to the region as "India." Misconception 2: "Before 1947, all of us - Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan - were a colony called BRITISH India!" While it is true that Myanmar (then Burma), Bangladesh (then East Bengal), India, and Pakistan were under British control, they were not all part of "British India" in the same administrative sense. Myanmar (Burma) was administered as a separate colony from 1937, distinct from British India. Bangladesh was part of Bengal province in British India until the partition in 1947. Misconception 3: "And we call it Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley, and that is because the Indus River is in Pakistan." The Indus Valley Civilization is named after the Indus River, which flows through present-day Pakistan. The civilization itself spanned a larger area, including parts of modern-day India. Major sites such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro are located in Pakistan, but other significant sites are in India. Conclusion The region known as "India" has a long history predating British colonization. While modern political boundaries were drawn in 1947, the cultural and geographical identity of India has ancient roots. British India was a specific administrative unit under British rule, but the concept of India as a cultural and geographical entity existed long before and continues to exist today. Understanding these nuances helps clarify the historical context and the long-standing significance of the term "India" beyond its colonial history.
I LOVE your videos. Thank you for bringing some clarity and reason to Archeology on RUclips. I especially like that you acknowledge that we don't know everything and that the field is ever evolving.
Once again, any time I pop in a Dr. Miano video it feels like the level of knowledge just has a bit more scrutiny and thoroughness put into it than the average RUclips content. I've always been interested in early cities, so I was pretty excited to see this pop up.
I love your videos because I *always* learn something, and this time is no different. I am surprised and delighted to learn that we have uncovered an earlier urban settlement than Uruk! So cool!!
Thank you for the video! It is appreciated that Dr. Miano spend nearly half of the time to point out the traits for determine if the place can be called city. So many people get confused and mistake settlement for the city.
Great video. I subscribed. My limited understanding is that Ur was distinct from Uruk; a short distance away on the other side of the Euphrates. Does Ur rate as a city and is it 'younger' than Uruk? Or are you grouping them together as the same principality?
I love the way you take a question like this and use it to teach us about the definitions and criteria involved in answering it, then use the entries in the list (and near misses!) to teach us more about how historians answer these questions and how the evidence fits with the (necessarily arbitrary) criteria and how to think about and learn about history. I have such fun learning from your videos and envy your students!
I would question the exclusion of the early Eastern European settlements on the grounds of lack of monumental architecture. Architecture is driven by building materials and their availability on the steppes is limited. The early cities on the list were predominantly mud brick which is dependent on the hot dry climate and access to water found in the various river valleys. Mud brick would not do well in the Rasputitsa, so buildings would be of wood. If you look at Kizhi Pogost in Russia as an example of monumental wooden buildings; a similar structure could have been build in early settlements but would leave little evidence after thousands of years.
Yes, lasting materials may be very helpful in identifying where people employed the more complex coordinated efforts that could signify city building, but most definitely shouldn't be prerequisites.
On the other hand, location is vital to the creation of what we think of as cities, and high cultures and dense settlements can't be afforded special exception status as "cities" based on what they could've been, had resources been available. It's important that we don't simply assume that things were a certain way based solely on the evidence that has survived, but we also can't make up stories where evidence is lacking. It's best that we mention all of the evidence, both strong and weak, in order to maintain a bigger picture, as this video has done.
@@timl9724 I agree that you need evidence of scale to describe something as a city. My point is that it is difficult to prove monumental architecture if all that remains is a series of post holes. Also monuments tend to be the product of specific cultural attitudes. Think of Celtic oppida, we know they had populations and densities comparable with many classical cities, but no monuments. Part because of building materials and part because of the nature of Celtic religion. If you look at the classical cities the monuments tend to be either religious structures or the palace's of god-kings. If you have a society where the leaders are seem as first among equels and the holy places are sacred woods, you are not going to get those sort of monuments.
@@theother1281 that's the thing. Cities aren't the end-all-be-all of cultural advancement. Maybe we're biased to see cities as evidence of the most advanced form of culture/society, because our current society is centered around these mega-cities. And maybe we wish to project that advanced status onto past cultures by defining their settlements as "cities" despite the missing evidence or failure to check the boxes. Just maybe though, it's time to recalibrate our idea of what constitutes "advanced" societies.
I'm glad that you mentioned about cucuteni trypillia. Im from România and I know that this sites were not excavated enough and I believe that if we will search more for evidence we probably will find that it was a city.
Thank you so much for this quality information. Have you thought about making a 5 oldest cities video? And also, do you have a criteria for what a civilization is, like you have for what a city is?
Civilization refers to cities. So basically they are the same. But because people use the word civilization in so many various ways, archaeologists tend to avoid the word these days, at least as a technical term.
I've always found Childe's list a little redundant since some of the criteria seem to identify a simular underlying fact. Existence of monumental structures seem to look for social stratification or potentially complex societal organisation, yet these are already established by other criteria. So what's the point of monumental architecture in and of itself for a city? It seem to be a simular case for bureaucracy and class differences. If we see bureaucracy without class differences it would seem to follow that either the class differences are not visible in the archaeological record, or they were not needed for the organisation of a city. And since we can have class differences without bureaucracy or a city, but not a city without bureaucracy it would seem to make more sense to look for bureaucracy and not worry about socioeconomic stratification. I know these are niche complaints, since most of these traits are highly correlated, but as an academic I live to split hairs. And I do think it's worth thinking about as it can help us evaluate and think about classification criteria in general.
How are these established by other criteria? I've wondered the same thing. Monumental structures seem like a sure sign of some kind of centralized resource control and distribution, which would also make social strata very likely
@@LVSJT They are established by the criteria of class structured society and State organisation/bureaucracy. By Childe's definition, both of these are needed for the classification of a city. So what's the point in monumental architecture? Is a settlement with social stratification, bureaucracy and all the other seven criteria but not monumental architecture really less of a city than one with it? Ofc you can use monumental architecture to argue for the existence of things like class structures but then you wouldn't need it as a separate category.
I don't question your list at all. However, I am curious about Liangzhu in the Yangtze River delta area. It seems to fit the characteristics of a city as defined, but I am not sure when it acquired that status. It seems like it might be a competitor for Jericho, or possibly even older. Excellent and interesting video, thanks!
I would love to see you do a video on Mohenjo-Daro and/or Harapaa. I know its not widely accepted as being as old as the cities named here, but I do remember there being debate about it being much older. (Some were arguing it was first "made" around 6000 BCE (made is in quotes, because I never found out what was meant when the word was used. Made could be when it was first settled as a trading outpost or something). But at the time I was studying more Israeli sites, and didnt look too hard at the claims). Regardless, the cities stands as archaeological masterpieces and deserve a spotlight in a video. Also, there are several cities that Chinese Archaeologists CLAIM (key word) go back 6000 to 10000 years. They state they were actual cities at this time. I have never studied Oriental Archaeology, so I have no idea the voracity of these claims, and as these Archaeologists are under the yoke of the CCP, I have issues believing them. But I think it would be an important factor to talk about.
It was an article that was presented to my class at UCLA in 2013. Flimsy evidence at best, I know. And the article is likely in with my College stuff in storage. So I cant even go grab the article to present to you. For this, I am sorry. I merely wanted to bring it up, in case someone else had also heard the claim. The CCP is notorious for exaggerating their claims to history, as everything for them is political. So I never BELIEVED them, hence the all caps Claim before. I have no doubts China would have sites as old as Ur. But their claims to be the premiere civilization has never sat well with me. That said, I love this field, but life has unfortunately taken me away from my passions, and I have regrettably fallen far behind in new information. Which is why I love your channel. After watching your "Ancient High Tech " debunking video, I have become a sincere fan.
Also there's a recently found 2-3 newer & much larger& more population sized etc earliest most Harappan series sites, namely Rakhigarhi ~3-4 times bigger in size& population while ~2-3000 yrs older than Harappa, another one nerar by is Kalibankan that's ~1000yrs less older& bit smaller than Rakhigarhi, which excavation started ~3yrs back only ~20+% excavated so far (I see that prof David's started talking about Rakhigarhi last 1-2 months)
As always, really good and really interresting. You should make a list like this one about the oldest cities : earliest cities continually occupied until nowadays.
I find this issue of what constitutes a city very interesting. Of course, in compiling a list such as this, you need to set ground rules/definitions, so I don't have any problem with that. But it is interesting to consider how our definitions of "advancement" run into circular ideological ideas, such as the notion that centralized authority, elites, and monumental architecture constitute more advanced or complex societies. I would argue that maintaining egalitarian organization is no less complex, and is in some ways more complex, not to mention potentially ethically/morally superior. This is really just my way of saying I'd like to have the Trypillia megasites as #1, but I understand why you excluded them. 😊
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Associations between equals who don't have mechanisms for compelling obedience through coercion are by no means simple. I could say cracking heads is much simpler than achieving consensus through discussion. But if you want to say that it's much more complex to create a monopoly over surpluses and employ a warrior elite who will crack heads for you because you're a god, I suppose that argument also has some merit.
Yes, one example was that the 1774 revolution against the British government was organized and fought by towns people commemorated in Emerson's Concord Hymn, "By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard round the world." They were not ignorant country folk, they were literate, and had practice in simple drill and fire arms use, some had even served in the military. Propaganda sometimes makes them look simpler so that their victories look better. Forcing the retreat of a major military formation, with constant sniping and then besieging the capital is not something that could have been done by rank amateurs.
@@Antaios632 the vast majority of eglatrian society's are like that because they don't have much extra surplus or resources or things you can horde to establish your self as an elite
Such a great vid! I had several "Well whatabout?" questions ready, but every one was explained. I'm always skeptical of any presentation when I hear people say things like "the first city" or "the first temple". I especially enjoyed the first few minutes, where you dealt with that issue.
As a student of Antiquity I really enjoyed this and you have a new subscriber. I think it might be interesting (and ambitious) if you want to start a video series on different regions of the world and their path of urban development - earliest settlements to their largest cities.
This reminds me of a discussion I had a while ago. Basicly the person claimed that a city can survive without farmers but a farmer can not exist without a city. *rolls eyes* I gave him evidence of earlier and earlier farming. I was "wrong" because farmers can not make statues(talking about tiny carved animals) or because a few mud huts had to be considered a city... Eventually he actually claimed that a single family/clan living in a cave was a city... I could not continue as I was actually rofl
Your friend is not familiar with subsistence farming, which is how farming began. It is thought that grain farming specifically is what led to the formation of cities, but recent evidence seems to push the use of grain, (if not it's cultivation), back long before cities. Your friend put the cart before the horse!
@@Vengir Not a clue, I think hunting and gathering or something. He was more focused on hammering in that modern farmers have a lot of costs for the machines so without money from the city they could not exists. The fact that a farmer without anyone around can just downscale to feed himself and his family and he would not need machines for that, so no high cost, kept going straight over his head :/ But you know, some city folk think that their food just magically appears in the stores...
Thank you. Quite interesting and informative. Very well presented as well. I like the way you included your thoughts on including/excluding certain places on the list.
Gobekle Tepe I guess isnt a city? but it is huge and is from 10,000 bc. That place fascinates me just purely due to it's age. It was as far in the past to Uruk as Uruk is to us now. That blows my mind it's so ancient.
Would Mohenjo Daro not count as one of the world's earliest cities? Or was it too merely a town? I suppose I never considered the distinction before this video. Regardless, I would love to see more of these 'earliest' videos, like another commenter said! They're fascinating.
Hi. Can I get a link to some additional information about the setback of Eridu that you mentioned around 17:10. I've heard that mentioned before several times, even by Jacobsen, but can never find any additional sources of info about it. Is there a paper covering it? If so I have a Jstore account so just the title would be enough. Any info appreciated.
You sir are on top of your game. Each site I thought may be considered a city and wondered why it wasn't included, you brought up. Also brought up some ones that hadn't caught my attention yet. You're awesome dude. Sincerely appreciate a person teaching true history and calling out the people who fall in line with the ancient aliens/lost ancient super society nonsense. Need more of this on the history channel.
Cool video. I just got the e booklet and I filled out the "super short" questionnaire. I honestly kind of wish there were a few more questions to answer lol. The last one you ask "what is your favorite ancient culture". I chose other because it's too difficult, I would have put all of the above if that were an option, don't make me choose! Lol. But i suppose if i were to HAVE to pick one i guess it may be Egypt. I've also subscribed and I'm looking forward to checking out more of your stuff, keep up the good work!
I'm happy that for every location I thought "Why didn't you include [Eridu/Ćatalhöyük/Göbekli Tepe]?," you explained at the end why it wasn't included. 👍🏻 I also wondered about Hattuša, although I suspect it flourished too late.
Çatalhöyük is so weird and worth a video all on its own. When I took an ancient cultures class at the University of Central Florida the professor made a very big deal about how unique it was for a culture to bury their dead within the town walls, let alone practically under the floorboards of their bedrooms.
Very ambitious, yet concise roundup of a complex subject. Thank you David for these terrific videos about human development as evidenced by actual archaeological remains. I needed no fire to be lit under me to spark my interest in antiquity, but your presentations add welcome fuel to a fire that's been burning for a long time.
The first farming people to settle in the region are associated with the Neolithic Starčevo culture, which flourished between 6200 and 5200 BC. There are several Starčevo sites in and around Belgrade, including the eponymous site of Starčevo. The Starčevo culture was succeeded by the Vinča culture (5500-4500 BC), a more sophisticated farming culture that grew out of the earlier Starčevo settlements and also named for a site in the Belgrade region (Vinča-Belo Brdo). The Vinča culture is known for its very large settlements, one of the earliest settlements by continuous habitation and some of the largest in prehistoric Europe. Also associated with the Vinča culture are anthropomorphic figurines such as the Lady of Vinča, the earliest known copper metallurgy in Europe, and a proto-writing form developed prior to the Sumerians and Minoans known as the Old European script, which dates back to around 5300 BC. Within the city proper, on Cetinjska Street, a skull of a Paleolithic human dated to before 5000 BC was discovered in 1890. - WIKI
Loved this... Anthropology has nothing to do with what I do for work or even any of my hobbies, but RUclips and content like this has made me realize I love this stuff
Thank you! I suspect like many others I was expecting Uruk to take the palm, but this is one of the beauties of history: Now I have to start looking into Tell Brak! In a sense, I was not surprised by Jericho's "low" rating, as I was aware of some of the requirements for a 'city', and while I knew it had long been a populated area, the idea that it hadn't quite made city status wasn't a big surprise. But as I say, now to start looking at ancient Syria and Tell Brak :) Thank you!
Thanks Professor Miano for another fascinating, fact-filled and thought-provoking video. I think one of the underlying theories involved is sometimes referred to s Uniformitarianism. This scientific assumption that natural processes occur and have results in very similar ways under similar conditions. When applied to social science it has to be more tentative. I would call myself cautiously uniformitarian, and I appreciate the cautious way that you apply certain criteria. The list of criteria has the potential flaw that it looks at the development of cities from the perspective of our concept of cities having been dominant for millennia. In the early 1700's Boston was referred to as a town, and Massachusetts as a colony. Numerous towns have been founded from Boston in the surrounding area. These settlements were not unplanned, groups were sent out from Boston and were required to build public works such as a road to Boston, fences, a common [most have become parks but were originally pasture], a meeting hall, church and school [at first they might be a single multi-use building but were eventually separate buildings. and later an armory. The local government was by town meeting, which still exists and has become steadily more democratic. In New England, town meetings still exist, but when the voting population becomes too large and meetings become too contentious, a proposal is made to add a permanent administration or Board of Selectmen under the authority of the meeting. At some point, the population becomes to big for even this to become practical so a vote is taken in the town meeting and the board, to petition the state government for incorporation change from town to city and an elected government is established. Unlike other parts of the US, our counties are vestigial, sometimes with no governmental function and without an administration, and sometimes only serve as convenient court districts or regional school districts. These towns and cities in New England were planned and integrated, so the whole area is now considered one of the US's 11 metropolitan areas rather than one or more independent cities. There is some reason to think that the Indus Valley Civilization(s) might have been similar to this, with meetings held in a swimming pool rather than a meeting house. I'm sorry for making such a long reply, as I just wanted to illustrate the French saying, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
I just ordered a copy of "The Royal game of Ur" from the British museum shop, it is pretty amazing that people had boardgames 5000 years ago that is so similar to games people play to this day like backgammon. ( ruclips.net/video/WZskjLq040I/видео.html ) That is professor Irving Finkel of the British museum playing it against a modern gamer and it sold me at least.
Irving is a great personality. Really loves what he does. I wanted to play the game with someone on a piece of wood but didn't find anyone who was interested to play
@@unrealuknow864 Really? My friends are all over board games so I expect it to be easy to find someone to game with. Heck, I think if you just bring a game to the pub an afternoon it should be relatively easy to coax someone into trying a game. It looks as fun as dart and other pub games. :) In worst case there is always gaming conventions.
Thank you Professor Miano for a very informing videocast on the world's earliest cities. We'll never know what life was like in the first cities all those millenia ago, but I've got a feeling that people lived in those cities in much the same way that people do today in our cities: the kids went to school, the father went to work, the mother took care of the home and cooked the food. Some people like myself believe there were doctors, lawyers and policemen and soldiers and kings and queens and every sort of profession we have today albeit without the diplomas and qualifications needed in modern times. It would be interesting to know what someone's dream was when they were young and starting out in life. What would their dreams have been for a good life? We might be surprised to see that their dreams mirrored our own.
I enjoy your channel so very much, Dr. Miano! You visibly enjoy your work so much, but refuse to allow any unnecessary, irrelevant, or conspiracy-theory-related nonsense to get in the way of teaching us actual evidence-based history. That makes you one of the very best historians on YT, hands down! Thank you for all you do! ❤️ ❤️ (I had to giggle when my autocorrect insisted I meant "misnomer," rather than Miano!)
It's great to see your numbers still going up. It's hard to get the truth heard these days. Still thankful to this channel for pulling me out of the alternative theory hell, I mean, rabbit hole I was falling into.
I am so glad you are doing this channel. There so many erroeous theories out in public venue. I know they are wrong but i dont have enough knowledge or facts to say why. Those people who argue for ancient aliens building things or creating human beings makes me crazy. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
The most out of place artifact in this video is the Funko Pop behind him. _"What could that figurine be? Similar figurines have also been found in other houses, often carefully organized in shelves. Perhaps the pre-contact Floridians used these Funko Pops as icons for worship. Much is yet to be known. I'll inform about the findings to Ung'Naak at once."_
Couple of folks mentioned Harappa/ Mohenje.. but you already said they started 2600Bce.. ( isn't it actually known as 3200 Bce start date) But what about the 2yrs back latest found nearby these same Indusvalley location i.e. Raghikhari near Delhi, thats dated 5200-7000 Bce & 4 times larger & very identical designed structures Etc of Harappa & Mohenje Daro & also another 2 new found cities namely, Keelady & AdichNallur both at further south near Madurai, Tamil Nadu with identical structures, Artifacts & writings etc but dated to 2500-3100 Bce. But Raghikhari must qualify for perhaps, even jump to #1 place by its size & way older date etc (but all 3 only 10-20% cleared so far). Is it skipped by mistake or other reasons like too new ?
@@vik24oct1991 making somw sounds, its not a language. Go speak with people from sri lanka, they know. We are only so centred on the middle east because of western society and the belief that the bible is fron there so therefore the oldest city should be there and the first civilisation should be there. But this is all a lie. If you look into it, you see that china and the indus valley are much much older. And Im willing to bet that doggerland and the sahara have plenty of secrets still hidden too
@@SWOTHDRA its a language, languages is for communication of ideas, I am pretty sure there are thousands of languages which were developed in early africa which are lot lot older than any of the languages which we hear today, moreover what you said is completely wrong, akkadian, sumerian, egyptian are older than tamil because people from africa first settled in near east before moving to asia, so civilizations first developed there. It is posited that even the people of indus valley were immigrants from near east and there is no prove of tamil being same language as indus valley langauge.
Fascinating. While I love learning about middle east antiques, I'd also love to hear more about American antiques. I am not native American, but I hung out with Siletz for decades. I consider myself a friend. Regardless, rock on.
Would love to see you on Joe Rogan! He has had so many people making wild claims (Bright Insight, Randall Carlson, Hancock, etc). It'd be great to show the layperson how much we DO know and is properly documented and investigated.
Rogan has those people because he believes their claims. It's not likely he's going to have a guest that proves his opinions are wrong because that's not how celebrities work.
👽...we come in peace Earthlings....I'm joking T, isn't great to just hear straight up facts that you can rely on ?. Hit the sub, like, and all that good stuff to help the channel.....peace to ya bud.
@@dazuk1969 Pretty sure it would be more along the lines of "Too bad your amino acids aren't compatible with our amino acids so there's no reason to keep you alive as cattle. Better to just wipe you all out and not deal with your kind."
Lemuria, Atlantis are Oz are the same thing....which are made up places that never actually existed. Believing these places are real, is a lot like believing in man in a red suit who lives at the North Pole with a lost race of crafting elves and flying reindeer.
Lemuria was actually a continent made up to account for lemurs only being in Madagascar and India. With continental drift and India being separate until it broke off of Madagascar and then collided with Asia, Lemuria was no longer necessary. The myths we think of with Lemuria today are all from fantasy and science fiction stories that were later appropriated by occultism. As conspiracy types like to say, Do some research and go deep.
@@stephenwilloughby8141 You: "Lemuria was actually a continent made up to account for lemurs only being in Madagascar and India." Me: There is NO scientific evidence of any land bridge responsible for the migration of lemurs ... from anywhere. That is simply a myth.
I'd like to see your views on Derinkuyu . I think I spelled that right . The underground city in Turkey . Always been fascinated with that place . If I ever have the money to travel that's where I'm going
Mesoamerica is more my area then the Andes, but i've had conversations with Andean archeologists that dispute that Caral was ever a city in the strict sense at all, in that it never had a permanent urban population, and was rather a monumental site that housed priests but not a larger population on a permanent basis, who would have visited on a transitory basis for ceremonies. They state that the first true urban site in the Andes would be Chavin de Huantar, which started out as a similar site, but picked up a permanent urban population around 500BC who saw increasing occupational specialization, and that kicked off Andean urbanism on a broader basis at other sites rather then merely having monumental temple complexes as previously. Also, regarding the point of "is it possible to have a city without rulers", I would point to Teotihuacan and Tlaxcala (potentially) Teotihuacan, a city in Mesoamerica from 100-600AD (existed before then as a smalelr site) had 100,000+ denizens, a massive planned urban grid filled with palaces and large pyramid compounds built from stone and richly painted, toilets and other waterwork systems, yet no royal icnography or tombs and basically the entire population lived in those palace compounds. We do see some references to figures who are often interpreted as rulers in Maya inscriptions thought to be disscussing Teotihuacan, but not everybody agrees on that. It is, however, worth noting that there are what have been identified as higher status palace compounds then others, and the GINI equality index of the city is less absurdly low in more modern studies then previously, so the city probably did have elites, but it's clear SOMETHING weirdly egalitarian was going on at the city (and I don't think you'd find anybody who disputes it's a city). The layout (the planned grid, the fact it was organized around a central road and not plazas), lack of ball courts, and the fact it was multi-ethnic (clear Maya, Zapotec, Gulf Coast, and West Mexican ethnic neighborhoods in the city) is also pretty wierd for a Mesoamerican city. Tlaxcala was a city (and also a larger kingdom with the same name) in Mesoamerica during the Late Postclassic period. It's layout is also unusual, and suggests a more open egalitarian society; and with more uniform residence sizes and goods. We also know from Conquistador accounts and from Tlaxcalteca people themselves during the 16th and 17th centuries that Tlaxcala was a sort of republic: There were commoners and nobles, at least in theory, but the goverment was primarily a council open to both if they passed tests legislators had to take. Stefan Milo has a video on Tlaxcala i'd reccomend, and I'd also reccomend the comment I left there, which actually notes that some of these attributes are things other Nahua ("Aztec", sort of, culturally; but not politically: Aztec vs Nahua vs Mexica as terms is complex) cities share to an extent too, and that all Nahua states seem to share some of the underlying social/political frameworks, but the relative power that each had and in effect if they were more of a monarchy or a republic varied. (something I didn't put in that comment but wish I did is that even at less egatlitarian, more politically ratrher then just culturally Aztec sites, it's been found that nominally elite goods weren't unheard of at commoner residences: "At home with the Aztecs" recounts how bronze sewing needles, fancy ceramic, chocolate cups, etc have been found in commoner homes even in small villages or medium sized towns.
I feel a little like with the Pluto debate, there are some rules proposed and little flexibility (support it is a planet btw( I understand certain bars have to be put but even in modern times there are places named cities that I believe is too much of a title for those places while others are called towns and are way more developed. Anyway great video, I'm subscribing.
@9:00 Jericho is located on a major fault zone, the Dead Sea Transform fault complex, which in addition to causing significant and destructive earthquakes throughout the periods of human habitation of the area, also brings ground water to the surface, which is the reason humans first found the location useful. The city of Jerusalem is roughly 25 miles east of the Jericho site, which means that the Jerusalem area has also been rocked by the same earthquakes. There was a major earthquake originating in the Jericho area in the 2920's that did massive damage to at least 1/3rd of the ancient parts of Jerusalem.
I would argue for my city being one of the earliest . . . but I'm basing that on the state of the roads.
😂
Now I'm questioning whether my city is even a city. 🤣
Where I grew up narrow dirt road with bridge only one car could cross at a time was called a highway and wider paved road with bridge two semi-trucks could cross over at once was called a trail.
Detroit?
Hahahahaha clearly you also hail from the proud and ancient land of Michigan.
Thank you for not just giving us a list but also covering the other "honorable mentions". Great job!
Nice to see you here
yeah.. i was glad you mentioned something in the Americas... too bad none of ours can prove to be among the very oldest... yet..
Interesting video .. thanks for posting it.
I love your channel, AA!
@@MrAbeAllenNorth American archeology has come so far recently and I am living for it. So much to learn and discover!
This is actually a tricky question to answer if you think about it. David mentioned a few more candidates at the end that didn't make the list, and I am sure there are others. I suppose the most important thing is the criteria for a city listed at the start. I always learn something watching this channel. WOA, you are smashing it on the sub count. I wish you continued success.
Thanks, Darren!
Great video! I love how you thoroughly walked through the criteria used to define cities. I wonder what modern cities would meet the same criteria and if they are consistent with attributes of ancient ones?
@@WorldofAntiquity Thanks for the intriguing video, I liked the first clarifying what we define as a city (archeological speaking), could you do the same for what constitutes a civilisation in a video, perhaps you already have?
@@damo5701 It's largely the same. A city is a product of a complex state (i.e., civilization).
@@WorldofAntiquity cheers
I would expect so many similar channels to just get right to the list. But I so appreciate the importance of definition here, and everywhere on your channel. As always, great presentation. Thank you.
Also, a video that provides a timeline of ancient history would be immensely useful to those of us in need of an organizational structure. Clarifying the archeological and historical periodization terminology used among professionals would also be a great help.
As part of this, I would like to see a comparison of the different civilizations/areas of the worlds at a certain point in time to see the different levels of progress. It would be nice to pick several reference points. For instance, take the building of the pyramids at Giza. What is going on in Mesopotamia, Europe, India, China, the Americas, etc. at the same time?
@@casey10s The building of the pyramids at Giza was around 3200 B.C.
here are a few other things that were happening about then:
(3800 BC): Trypillian build in Talianki (Ukraine) settlement which reached 15,600-21,000 inhabitants. Was it a city?
c. 3,600-2000 BC megalithic sites: Stenness (Orkney Islands Scotland) religious site, Callanish (Lewis isle Scotland), Brú na Bóinne and Carrowmore and Carrowkeel (Ireland) underground tomb sites, Ġgantija and Mnajdra sites (Malta), Domus de Janas (Sardinia), and other megalithic sites in Europe.
(3500 BC): End of the African humid period possibly linked to the Piora Oscillation: a rapid and intense aridification event, which probably started the current Sahara Desert (and Arabia) dry phase and a population increase in the Nile Valley due to migrations from nearby regions.
c. 3500 BC (or earlier) Neolithic farming wheat and barley/beer and raising (both middle eastern inventions) domestic cattle and pigs spreads to N Europe and Britain. DNA changes indicate people migration into N Europe, Britain and Ireland. DNA example of an inter-related ruling class across N Europe to Ireland.
3250 BC Paper Made Of Papyrus Reed - The first known paper was produced in Egypt. The central pulp of papyrus reed was split, dried and glued together.
3200 BC Hieroglyphic Writing - The Egyptians developed a system of writing known as Hieroglyphics in c.3200 BC. Hieroglyphics told the stories with pictographs.
3200 BC Sumerian Civilization Begins? - Around 3200 BC, a system of city-states developed along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. The Sumerians developed a loose confederation of the city-states. The states often fought against one another.
(19 July, 3228 BC The traditionally accepted time that Krishna of India born, Avatar of god or a god in Hinduism/Dravidian Religion)
c. 3100 BC traditional date Dwarka city (India), claimed home of Krishna to Hindus, sinks beneath the waves.
c. 3100 BC?: Varna (Bulgaria) Necropolis: what have been claimed to be the earliest-known worked gold artifacts are manufactured
c. 3100 BC?: Crete: Rise/beginning of Minoan civilization
c. 3100 BC?: Ötzi: The final years of the Iceman's life (Austria/Italy)
c. 3100 BC Stonehenge (England) started with small holes. It will not be finished until c. 2,400-2200 BC.
about 3100 BC - milestone: 14 Million Earth Pop! WhooHoo!
@@tommy-er6hh I am seeing a lot of 2,600 bc dates for the Giza pyramids.
@@jamisojo There is some controversy of when, but sure i will give you a timeline for 2600BC:
c. 2900 BC-2300 BC corded ware culture (Yamnaya?) believed to originate Indo-European and Indo-Ayran languages spreads from Ukraine into N Europe (Bell Beaker culture?) and eastward to Persia/India (Oxus/BMAC?). Also cuneiform writing is invented in Sumer area.
c. 2,600 BC(or 2589 BC?) first Pyramid built in Egypt; Scandinavia has a warm period. Caral Supe settlement in Peru; also last giant sloth dies in Americas?
c. 2600-1900 BC Indus valley city civilization. Some lingams and yoni used in Hinduism are from this period. Possibly Dravidian Agamic non-Veda pre-Hinduism. Eventually 10% of the world pop - until their collapse.
c. 2600-2334 BC: Early Dynastic period III. Dominion of the First Dynasty of Ur. The Royal Cemetery at Ur is constructed.
c. 2600 BC: Reign of Akalamdug, king of Ur.
c. 2600-2500 BC: The Instructions of Shuruppak, the earliest known literary texts, are created in Adab, Shuruppak and Abu Salabikh.
c. 2600 BC The Canaanites establish themselves in the region around what is now Jerusalem
c. 2600 BC: Pre-Palace Period, phase I, in Crete (Mellersh 1970)
c. 2600 BC - 2500 BC: Wild horses still provide hunting feasts in Denmark. (Clutton-Brock). Also around this time Rock drawings at Rødøy in Norway show the use of skis, and Bactrian Camel and Dromedary are domesticated in Central Asia.
2570 BC: Reigns of Uhub, king of Kish, and of En-hegal, king of Lagash.
c.2500 BC The Epic of Gilgamesh, the cycle of poems preserved on clay tablets surviving from ancient Mesopotamia of the third millennium B.C. written.
c. 2500 BC first humans arrived in Philippines.
c. 2,400-1600 BC the Oxus Civilization (aka BMAC) in Asia arose. They are believed to be Fire-worshipers Indo-Arayans, as the later Iranians (Persians, Medes, & Parthians) were.
@@tommy-er6hh What defines a city ?. We have to use some kind of yardstick to answer that question. If you have sites that you think might be very early cities, refer to the criteria list and see how many match up. Even David said the last two on the list are open to interpretation, but all the others have to be there. If they are....you have a city !....peace to ya bud.
Can you do more "earliest" videos? Maybe the earliest "cultures"? The origin of things is quite fascinating.
what can foresee movement is inteligence
(from where brains origin)
"Earliest cultures" is a bit weird. "Culture", as in, a system of knowledge and practices that is passed down from generation to generation, undoubtedly predates humans and is not unique to humans. Even some types of bird have "culture", in this sense, though I don't think that means it comes from our common reptillian ancestors: The ability to develop and maintain different "cultures" in different populations might be one of those things that birds, cetacians, and apes evolved separately from each other by parallel evolution.
I'm not sure if it's just one clade of birds (i.e., it may have developed more than once in birds) or if it's limited to apes and cetacians in mammals, though. I do remember hearing that Meerkats (South African Mongooses) can communicate colors between each other (not that that implies they remember communicated things for generations). It's also possible that I'm GREATLY underestimating how many animals have "culture", since it basically should be expected of any type of animal that has indefinite long term memory, communication of long-term-relevant knowledge and skills (as opposed to things like "a predator is here right now", which will matter little in the distant future), and a social pattern of individuals usually teaching the same kind of information to others as was taught to them (likely often parent to child).
@@Mr.Nichan Earliest cultures we know. I used the term because before there were civilizations like Sumeria or ancient Egypt, historians seem to refer to certain "cultures" or peoples. For example, see the "Halfan and Kubbaniyan culture" or the "Harifian culture." So it's not the same kind of "culture" you may be thinking about
That being said, the as-yet unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) question of when hominins first developed language (a communication system as theoretically unlimited in expression as modern human language) is very relevant to the development of "culture", since that increases the range of ideas that can be communicated between induviduals and thus passed on to future generations, and the ease of doing so, making it possible, or at least easier, for cultures to dramatically improve their knowledge and skill over many generations.
@@Mr.Nichan a number is the answer to 'how many'
A fascinating video covering an interesting topic, with information presented clearly and without speculation or conspiracy. You, my friend, have just gained a new subscriber, and are likely to gain a few more when I show the people at work this video (I work in a museum dedicated to the Victorian era and although I’m the most interested in antiquity everyone else has an appreciation for it).
Wow, thank you!
Always so happy to see a new video by you!! You deserve your growth! Well done!! And thank u,❤️
Great video! You should consider making a video listing the largest known settlements at different times in history. Like it would interesting to know what the largest settlement (without the rules defined in this video to be called a city) was in say 10,000BCE and then 9,000BCE, etc. Or maybe even older if we know that info.
my favorite theory on why we started living in towns/cities is beer making
Thank you for another excellent video, I hope your channel becomes one of the most popular on educational RUclips!
Very fascinating video. The analysis of the criteria is very usefull.
I'm a bit surprised by the lack of Chinese sites both on the Yangtze or the Yellow River, and this make me wish for a video comparison about timing and features of the six "original" state societies.
There's so much unknown. What about the interiors of Africa and the Nile valley. Just as Caral caught everyone off guard there's no reason why there couldn't be a new exciting discovery along any of the major world rivers
Isn't one of them prone to extreme flooding? I would think that would VERY heavily discourage colonization, let alone mass scale building, imho.
@@dubuyajay9964 Both those rivers flood but the Yangtze floods every summer.
he seems very biased about Indian and Chinese civilization although IVC and Chinese civilization urban centres is date back to more then 3000 bc he never mentioned anything about them
Great video! As an urban geographer, these archeological definitions of what constitutes as a ‘city’ are very interesting to me. Some properties seem highly arbitrary, though I guess we need some clear cut boundaries to distinguish ‘villages’ and ‘towns’ from proper ‘cities’. The question of social and/or economic hierachary is especially thought provoking, as there seems to be a major difference between IS or OUGHT.
This is a really nice overview of the oldest accepted urban sites, and the specific criteria used to determine their status.
Not sure I fully agree with the criteria, and the very old settlement of Jericho (walled, stone tower etc) is quite impressive, but any set of criteria, will be questionable, and arbitrary at its boundaries, and the list is a decent starting point.
The only place where I question the exclusion is the Moldavian/Balkan sites. In the temperate climate it's very possible that they had monumental architecture and bureaucracy but made of materials that didn't preserve as well. Excluding them as cities based on a lack of clear evidence for those things despite clear evidence for their size strikes me as highly arbitrary (and possibly revealing the challenge in overthrowing convention)
I'm also interested in the Tepe sites, as they are definitely larger than what has currently been excavated but there we absolutely need more evidence before being certain of where they fit on the sliding scale of development.
I personally think Boncuklu Tarla is more interesting then Göbekli Tepe (it leas 300 kilometers east of GT and is about a thousands years older but have so far gained little publicity) but I don't think either could be counted as a city. Jericho was pretty small so it is out too. Çatalhöyük is where the definition of a city really becomes important because it was rather large so if it was a city or not depends on your criteria what a city is.
With Talianki and Maydanet it is a bit of the same thing. It is possible that the Vinča symbols, also known as the Danube script were an actual primitive written language and if that is proven that would force us to re-evaluate them and might get them on the list but as of now we don't have enough information to really put them on the list. They could certainly had wooden monuments that have not survived, if they actually had writing that should be enough to tip the scale.
The Vinča symbols do seems to have a little in common with the Indus valley script who also only appear in short sentences we never been able to translate so they can possibly have some meaning, future finds might prove more there.
Even Çatalhöyük was urbanized but we do need rules to determine what is a city and what is a town and just using size might not be good enough.
@@DianaAtena good points, but I'm not quite sure I would say "writing is necessary".
I would phrase it as "a method of recordkeeping is necessary."
It's highly questionable if the south American quipu's were fully equivalent to a writing system, but they were definitely a method of recordkeeping.
I'm not all that up to date on the Tepe sites. Is there now evidence they were permanently occupied, rather than just gathering sites?
@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 We are leaning towards that they either lived there part of the year or permanently.
That part of the site is not fully excavated though so it is a bit early to draw any final conclusion.
Boncuklu Tarla is a thousand years older and it did have houses, temples and specialty building though so it is extremely likely Göbekli Tepe was similar, they are from the same general area and culture.
So yeah, probably but we wont know for 100% until more of the site is excavated, so far they have only done 5% of it.
That area of the world is extremely interesting since we have found a bunch of smaller Tepes from about the same time as well.
I agree that rigid adherence to an aging paradigm presents problems, like using the seating arrangements of the 17th Century French Parliament to describe modern political alignments.
I am glad that You mentioned Cucuteni-Tripillian cities. Most of presenters just overlook them.
They were highly advanced by the using domesticated plants and animals. I think that Lower Danubian cultures from that time would soon join that list. Those like Vinča and related ones. It is highly possible that they even invented one of the oldest writing system. I wonder, why those highly advanced cultures just dissapeared at the beggining of the bronze age.
Horsey, Horsey, Arrow, Arrow, Bronze Axe in head. Say hello to the Indo European's.
Yes, not really that much mystery there, the Indo-European migration was brutal. These late Neolithic societies weren't really warlike, for a long time they barely had walls around settlements. You see that gradually changing. Anyway, the cultures that were closest to the Indo-European homeland suffered the brunt of their expansion, with little time to adapt they were most likely wiped out or brutally integrated. The decrease in pottery quality is so huge. Not to mention that Eastern Europe areas were faced with multiple waves of migration. On the other hand there is a big delay until the Indo-Europeans reach Western Europe, 1500 years or even more compared to the first contacts with Cucuteni-Trypillia. Basically the changes traveled faster than the people, the cultures in the West were much better prepared to face them when they arrived. That's why you see a lot of them surviving, mingling or even assimilating Indo-European tribes, in Spain, Italy and other areas.
all early farming cultures were weak ate grain and were sick easy to wipe out by any warlike culture around usually naturally after first pandemic decimating such cities
@@Bayard1503europeans... colonizing people since 10000 BC.
I didn’t know that the term “city” had such a specific definition. You learn something new every day. Thanks!
I had a great conversation with some people on a Brian Forster picture on Instagram talking about the Kailasa being built earlier than 760 CE. I asked what evidence is there, someone told me common sense xD. Like what?!? That’s your evidence?!? Common sense?!? I died laughing xD
Thing about common sense is, that it is not at all common. =D
My common sense tells me to be skeptical of Brian Foster.
I enjoy watching Foerster vids but I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have a good idea of what he’s talking about I must acknowledge he has built an empire with his books and specially hidden Inca tours which is actually a tourist tour engine but if you have some college education in these areas of study you’ll notice his content is half ways a guessing game
We don't need common sense when we got nationalism 😎🇮🇳🇮🇳 I'm sorry on behalf of the BJP (ruling party)
They have spread their cancer nationalism as a part of their dangerous agenda of opium that helps them keep ruling india while the economy goes in shambles.
@Royin, so your gonna come here, and talk trash about Brien? Your a coward for that..
This is a great lesson on how to even go about trying to answer this question as well learning the actual list. I would love to see a regional version of this list including India, China, Indonesia, South America etc. Also it is just as interesting to learn of the locations that did not make the list and why.
May I request one for Pakistan - sites like Mehr Garh, Mohenjo Daro and Harappa!
@@Pakiza-Ali lol they are included in India or Bharatvarsha (ancient Bharat, Pakistan didn't exist before 1947), firstly learn how we study history lol...there's a reason we call it Indus Valley civilization... and more so you people destroyed our ancient cities and didn't preserve them because of extremist because they don't belong to Islam which is ridiculous, bro read your own history which is not very much tbh
@@anupamraj3922 If Pakistan did not exist before 1947 what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947? Check your passport or better yur history books. Before 1947 all of us - Myanmar, Bengladesh, India, Pakistan were colony called BRITISH India ! And we call it name Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley and that is because Indus River is in Pakistan.
@@Pakiza-Ali lol sir, what do you even mean by if? such a brain w@ashed person you are, please first know what the meaning of indus is, and you people who read the wrong history and geography don't even know that Bharat existed way before, please start reading now, here are some tips for you sir, its humble request of mine to correct yourself and your generations to save them.
India as a Geographical and Cultural Entity:
The name "India" has ancient origins, deriving from the River Indus, which flows mainly through modern-day Pakistan.
The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the earliest urban cultures, was located in this region around 3300-1300 BCE.
Over millennia, the term "India" (from the Sanskrit "Sindhu" meaning river) has been used to refer to the subcontinent and its rich cultural, religious, and historical heritage.
Misconceptions in the Statement:-
Misconception 1: "If Pakistan did not exist before 1947, what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947?"
The modern nation-states of Pakistan and India were indeed created in 1947. However, the concept of India as a geographical and cultural entity has existed for thousands of years.
The term "India" was used in various historical texts and by various civilizations long before British colonization. For example, ancient Greek and Persian texts referred to the region as "India."
Misconception 2: "Before 1947, all of us - Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan - were a colony called BRITISH India!"
While it is true that Myanmar (then Burma), Bangladesh (then East Bengal), India, and Pakistan were under British control, they were not all part of "British India" in the same administrative sense.
Myanmar (Burma) was administered as a separate colony from 1937, distinct from British India.
Bangladesh was part of Bengal province in British India until the partition in 1947.
Misconception 3: "And we call it Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley, and that is because the Indus River is in Pakistan."
The Indus Valley Civilization is named after the Indus River, which flows through present-day Pakistan.
The civilization itself spanned a larger area, including parts of modern-day India. Major sites such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro are located in Pakistan, but other significant sites are in India.
Conclusion
The region known as "India" has a long history predating British colonization. While modern political boundaries were drawn in 1947, the cultural and geographical identity of India has ancient roots.
British India was a specific administrative unit under British rule, but the concept of India as a cultural and geographical entity existed long before and continues to exist today.
Understanding these nuances helps clarify the historical context and the long-standing significance of the term "India" beyond its colonial history.
@@Pakiza-Ali lol sir, what do you even mean by if? such a brain w @ ashed person you are, please first know what the meaning of indus is, and you people who read the wrong history and geography don't even know that Bharat existed way before, please start reading now, here are some tips for you sir, its humble request of mine to correct yourself and your generations to save them.
India as a Geographical and Cultural Entity:
The name "India" has ancient origins, deriving from the River Indus, which flows mainly through modern-day Pakistan.
The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the earliest urban cultures, was located in this region around 3300-1300 BCE.
Over millennia, the term "India" (from the Sanskrit "Sindhu" meaning river) has been used to refer to the subcontinent and its rich cultural, religious, and historical heritage.
Misconceptions in the Statement:-
Misconception 1: "If Pakistan did not exist before 1947, what makes you think that the huge colony India existed before 1947?"
The modern nation-states of Pakistan and India were indeed created in 1947. However, the concept of India as a geographical and cultural entity has existed for thousands of years.
The term "India" was used in various historical texts and by various civilizations long before British colonization. For example, ancient Greek and Persian texts referred to the region as "India."
Misconception 2: "Before 1947, all of us - Myanmar, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan - were a colony called BRITISH India!"
While it is true that Myanmar (then Burma), Bangladesh (then East Bengal), India, and Pakistan were under British control, they were not all part of "British India" in the same administrative sense.
Myanmar (Burma) was administered as a separate colony from 1937, distinct from British India.
Bangladesh was part of Bengal province in British India until the partition in 1947.
Misconception 3: "And we call it Indus Valley because it is found in Indus Valley, and that is because the Indus River is in Pakistan."
The Indus Valley Civilization is named after the Indus River, which flows through present-day Pakistan.
The civilization itself spanned a larger area, including parts of modern-day India. Major sites such as Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro are located in Pakistan, but other significant sites are in India.
Conclusion
The region known as "India" has a long history predating British colonization. While modern political boundaries were drawn in 1947, the cultural and geographical identity of India has ancient roots.
British India was a specific administrative unit under British rule, but the concept of India as a cultural and geographical entity existed long before and continues to exist today.
Understanding these nuances helps clarify the historical context and the long-standing significance of the term "India" beyond its colonial history.
Share this video my friends.. this man deserves a much bigger following!
Love this content. Pure fact, no conjecture. No "ancient astronaut theorists" believe.
Great video and great flow you have man... 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👍🏾👍🏾
Made me rewind a couple of times.
I LOVE your videos. Thank you for bringing some clarity and reason to Archeology on RUclips. I especially like that you acknowledge that we don't know everything and that the field is ever evolving.
Great stuff, keep 'em coming.
Once again, any time I pop in a Dr. Miano video it feels like the level of knowledge just has a bit more scrutiny and thoroughness put into it than the average RUclips content. I've always been interested in early cities, so I was pretty excited to see this pop up.
I loved the globe zoom-ins. Very smooth and I think they complement the video well!
I love your videos because I *always* learn something, and this time is no different. I am surprised and delighted to learn that we have uncovered an earlier urban settlement than Uruk! So cool!!
Thank you for the video!
It is appreciated that Dr. Miano spend nearly half of the time to point out the traits for determine if the place can be called city. So many people get confused and mistake settlement for the city.
Thank you for sharing this information, more people need to know this. Keep up the great work! 42
Appreciate the mention of Gobekli Tepe and Caral.
I like the hard-lined definition. Its very easy to fall into shaving down the definition to where too much overlap occurs.
It is an elusive question as to when does a settlement becomes a city category depends on what you think qualifies as a city
Great video. I subscribed. My limited understanding is that Ur was distinct from Uruk; a short distance away on the other side of the Euphrates. Does Ur rate as a city and is it 'younger' than Uruk? Or are you grouping them together as the same principality?
I love the way you take a question like this and use it to teach us about the definitions and criteria involved in answering it, then use the entries in the list (and near misses!) to teach us more about how historians answer these questions and how the evidence fits with the (necessarily arbitrary) criteria and how to think about and learn about history. I have such fun learning from your videos and envy your students!
Amazing video man could you also make a video on oldest surviving cities that would be fascinating to know .
I would question the exclusion of the early Eastern European settlements on the grounds of lack of monumental architecture. Architecture is driven by building materials and their availability on the steppes is limited. The early cities on the list were predominantly mud brick which is dependent on the hot dry climate and access to water found in the various river valleys.
Mud brick would not do well in the Rasputitsa, so buildings would be of wood. If you look at Kizhi Pogost in Russia as an example of monumental wooden buildings; a similar structure could have been build in early settlements but would leave little evidence after thousands of years.
Yes, lasting materials may be very helpful in identifying where people employed the more complex coordinated efforts that could signify city building, but most definitely shouldn't be prerequisites.
On the other hand, location is vital to the creation of what we think of as cities, and high cultures and dense settlements can't be afforded special exception status as "cities" based on what they could've been, had resources been available. It's important that we don't simply assume that things were a certain way based solely on the evidence that has survived, but we also can't make up stories where evidence is lacking. It's best that we mention all of the evidence, both strong and weak, in order to maintain a bigger picture, as this video has done.
@@timl9724
I agree that you need evidence of scale to describe something as a city. My point is that it is difficult to prove monumental architecture if all that remains is a series of post holes.
Also monuments tend to be the product of specific cultural attitudes.
Think of Celtic oppida, we know they had populations and densities comparable with many classical cities, but no monuments. Part because of building materials and part because of the nature of Celtic religion.
If you look at the classical cities the monuments tend to be either religious structures or the palace's of god-kings.
If you have a society where the leaders are seem as first among equels and the holy places are sacred woods, you are not going to get those sort of monuments.
@@theother1281 that's the thing. Cities aren't the end-all-be-all of cultural advancement. Maybe we're biased to see cities as evidence of the most advanced form of culture/society, because our current society is centered around these mega-cities. And maybe we wish to project that advanced status onto past cultures by defining their settlements as "cities" despite the missing evidence or failure to check the boxes. Just maybe though, it's time to recalibrate our idea of what constitutes "advanced" societies.
@@theother1281 if they found evidence of smaller dwellings, why would larger ones - not be preserved!?
Thanks for wearing a tie. You look sharp, professional and trustworthy. It adds class to the vid. Good choice sir!
Excellent, thank you. I think Child’s definition holds up well. Art might not be necessary, but it’s tough to find a city where it was not present.
This is so interesting! Made me think so much and the list that makes a city I had not heard before. Please keep more like this, its fascinating
I'm glad that you mentioned about cucuteni trypillia. Im from România and I know that this sites were not excavated enough and I believe that if we will search more for evidence we probably will find that it was a city.
Thank you so much for this quality information.
Have you thought about making a 5 oldest cities video?
And also, do you have a criteria for what a civilization is, like you have for what a city is?
Civilization refers to cities. So basically they are the same. But because people use the word civilization in so many various ways, archaeologists tend to avoid the word these days, at least as a technical term.
@@WorldofAntiquity That makes sense, thanks👍
I've always found Childe's list a little redundant since some of the criteria seem to identify a simular underlying fact. Existence of monumental structures seem to look for social stratification or potentially complex societal organisation, yet these are already established by other criteria. So what's the point of monumental architecture in and of itself for a city?
It seem to be a simular case for bureaucracy and class differences. If we see bureaucracy without class differences it would seem to follow that either the class differences are not visible in the archaeological record, or they were not needed for the organisation of a city. And since we can have class differences without bureaucracy or a city, but not a city without bureaucracy it would seem to make more sense to look for bureaucracy and not worry about socioeconomic stratification.
I know these are niche complaints, since most of these traits are highly correlated, but as an academic I live to split hairs. And I do think it's worth thinking about as it can help us evaluate and think about classification criteria in general.
How are these established by other criteria? I've wondered the same thing. Monumental structures seem like a sure sign of some kind of centralized resource control and distribution, which would also make social strata very likely
@@LVSJT They are established by the criteria of class structured society and State organisation/bureaucracy. By Childe's definition, both of these are needed for the classification of a city. So what's the point in monumental architecture? Is a settlement with social stratification, bureaucracy and all the other seven criteria but not monumental architecture really less of a city than one with it?
Ofc you can use monumental architecture to argue for the existence of things like class structures but then you wouldn't need it as a separate category.
@@LVSJT Stonehenge?
I don't question your list at all. However, I am curious about Liangzhu in the Yangtze River delta area. It seems to fit the characteristics of a city as defined, but I am not sure when it acquired that status. It seems like it might be a competitor for Jericho, or possibly even older. Excellent and interesting video, thanks!
See note below the video.
A nice analysis. Thank you. I was expecting Damascus as an honorable mention. Has it dropped off entirely under further review?
It wasn't settled until the 3rd millennium BCE.
@@WorldofAntiquity Thank you for the clarification.
Well done video! So clearly explained- you got a new subscriber!
Thanks and welcome!
I would love to see you do a video on Mohenjo-Daro and/or Harapaa. I know its not widely accepted as being as old as the cities named here, but I do remember there being debate about it being much older. (Some were arguing it was first "made" around 6000 BCE (made is in quotes, because I never found out what was meant when the word was used. Made could be when it was first settled as a trading outpost or something). But at the time I was studying more Israeli sites, and didnt look too hard at the claims). Regardless, the cities stands as archaeological masterpieces and deserve a spotlight in a video.
Also, there are several cities that Chinese Archaeologists CLAIM (key word) go back 6000 to 10000 years. They state they were actual cities at this time. I have never studied Oriental Archaeology, so I have no idea the voracity of these claims, and as these Archaeologists are under the yoke of the CCP, I have issues believing them. But I think it would be an important factor to talk about.
I have never heard about Chinese archaeologists claiming urbanization that far back. Where did you come across this?
It was an article that was presented to my class at UCLA in 2013. Flimsy evidence at best, I know. And the article is likely in with my College stuff in storage. So I cant even go grab the article to present to you. For this, I am sorry. I merely wanted to bring it up, in case someone else had also heard the claim. The CCP is notorious for exaggerating their claims to history, as everything for them is political. So I never BELIEVED them, hence the all caps Claim before. I have no doubts China would have sites as old as Ur. But their claims to be the premiere civilization has never sat well with me.
That said, I love this field, but life has unfortunately taken me away from my passions, and I have regrettably fallen far behind in new information. Which is why I love your channel. After watching your "Ancient High Tech " debunking video, I have become a sincere fan.
Also there's a recently found 2-3 newer & much larger& more population sized etc earliest most Harappan series sites, namely Rakhigarhi ~3-4 times bigger in size& population while ~2-3000 yrs older than Harappa, another one nerar by is Kalibankan that's ~1000yrs less older& bit smaller than Rakhigarhi, which excavation started ~3yrs back only ~20+% excavated so far (I see that prof David's started talking about Rakhigarhi last 1-2 months)
@@WorldofAntiquity what about the ancient city known as New Yak ??
@@greenlove5833 - Shouldn't that Old Yak?
As always, really good and really interresting. You should make a list like this one about the oldest cities : earliest cities continually occupied until nowadays.
I find this issue of what constitutes a city very interesting. Of course, in compiling a list such as this, you need to set ground rules/definitions, so I don't have any problem with that. But it is interesting to consider how our definitions of "advancement" run into circular ideological ideas, such as the notion that centralized authority, elites, and monumental architecture constitute more advanced or complex societies. I would argue that maintaining egalitarian organization is no less complex, and is in some ways more complex, not to mention potentially ethically/morally superior. This is really just my way of saying I'd like to have the Trypillia megasites as #1, but I understand why you excluded them. 😊
Actually for an eglatrian society to be maintained is for your society to be very simplistic and uncomplicated
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Associations between equals who don't have mechanisms for compelling obedience through coercion are by no means simple. I could say cracking heads is much simpler than achieving consensus through discussion. But if you want to say that it's much more complex to create a monopoly over surpluses and employ a warrior elite who will crack heads for you because you're a god, I suppose that argument also has some merit.
Yes, one example was that the 1774 revolution against the British government was organized and fought by towns people commemorated in Emerson's Concord Hymn,
"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world."
They were not ignorant country folk, they were literate, and had practice in simple drill and fire arms use, some had even served in the military. Propaganda sometimes makes them look simpler so that their victories look better. Forcing the retreat of a major military formation, with constant sniping and then besieging the capital is not something that could have been done by rank amateurs.
@@Antaios632 the vast majority of eglatrian society's are like that because they don't have much extra surplus or resources or things you can horde to establish your self as an elite
@@JMM33RanMA what that has to do with anything we are talking about?
Loved this. I wanted to ask you to do this video too! Thank you
Such a great vid!
I had several "Well whatabout?" questions ready, but every one was explained.
I'm always skeptical of any presentation when I hear people say things like "the first city" or "the first temple". I especially enjoyed the first few minutes, where you dealt with that issue.
As a student of Antiquity I really enjoyed this and you have a new subscriber. I think it might be interesting (and ambitious) if you want to start a video series on different regions of the world and their path of urban development - earliest settlements to their largest cities.
This reminds me of a discussion I had a while ago.
Basicly the person claimed that a city can survive without farmers but a farmer can not exist without a city. *rolls eyes*
I gave him evidence of earlier and earlier farming. I was "wrong" because farmers can not make statues(talking about tiny carved animals) or because a few mud huts had to be considered a city...
Eventually he actually claimed that a single family/clan living in a cave was a city... I could not continue as I was actually rofl
Your friend is not familiar with subsistence farming, which is how farming began. It is thought that grain farming specifically is what led to the formation of cities, but recent evidence seems to push the use of grain, (if not it's cultivation), back long before cities. Your friend put the cart before the horse!
@@thomasnaas2813 He was not my friend but other than that you are 100% right!
And how did he propose cities would feed themselves without farming?
@@Vengir Not a clue, I think hunting and gathering or something.
He was more focused on hammering in that modern farmers have a lot of costs for the machines so without money from the city they could not exists.
The fact that a farmer without anyone around can just downscale to feed himself and his family and he would not need machines for that, so no high cost, kept going straight over his head :/
But you know, some city folk think that their food just magically appears in the stores...
Urbanites.....the most clueless of creatures on Earth. Textbook example of Kruger-Dunning.
Very well presented and researched study. The criteria makes it even more complex and difficult to research, but is appreciated. Thank you.
Just back from an extended vacation and you've passed 60K Subs! Congrats - very well deserved!
Thanks!
I second that John.
Thank you. Quite interesting and informative. Very well presented as well. I like the way you included your thoughts on including/excluding certain places on the list.
Gobekle Tepe I guess isnt a city? but it is huge and is from 10,000 bc. That place fascinates me just purely due to it's age. It was as far in the past to Uruk as Uruk is to us now. That blows my mind it's so ancient.
Exactly
Fascinating video. And thank you for being so well-groomed. Love that you make us think.
Would Mohenjo Daro not count as one of the world's earliest cities? Or was it too merely a town? I suppose I never considered the distinction before this video.
Regardless, I would love to see more of these 'earliest' videos, like another commenter said! They're fascinating.
He does address Indus Valley sites at the end, saying while initial settlements are older, urbanisation happened only around 2600
@@wellimeantosaywhat Aaah, I totally missed that. Thank you!
In Sanskrit, city is called "nagar", is this just coincidence? Word "Nagar" is still used very often in india
Hi. Can I get a link to some additional information about the setback of Eridu that you mentioned around 17:10. I've heard that mentioned before several times, even by Jacobsen, but can never find any additional sources of info about it. Is there a paper covering it? If so I have a Jstore account so just the title would be enough. Any info appreciated.
You sir are on top of your game. Each site I thought may be considered a city and wondered why it wasn't included, you brought up. Also brought up some ones that hadn't caught my attention yet. You're awesome dude. Sincerely appreciate a person teaching true history and calling out the people who fall in line with the ancient aliens/lost ancient super society nonsense. Need more of this on the history channel.
Well done, a great watch. Thanks Sir.
Regards from Western Scotland.
I always wondered about the level of trade in goods and services between these cities and nearby population centers. Must have been fascinating times.
Cool video. I just got the e booklet and I filled out the "super short" questionnaire. I honestly kind of wish there were a few more questions to answer lol. The last one you ask "what is your favorite ancient culture". I chose other because it's too difficult, I would have put all of the above if that were an option, don't make me choose! Lol. But i suppose if i were to HAVE to pick one i guess it may be Egypt. I've also subscribed and I'm looking forward to checking out more of your stuff, keep up the good work!
Your intellectual exuberance is contagious.
I'm happy that for every location I thought "Why didn't you include [Eridu/Ćatalhöyük/Göbekli Tepe]?," you explained at the end why it wasn't included. 👍🏻
I also wondered about Hattuša, although I suspect it flourished too late.
Çatalhöyük is so weird and worth a video all on its own. When I took an ancient cultures class at the University of Central Florida the professor made a very big deal about how unique it was for a culture to bury their dead within the town walls, let alone practically under the floorboards of their bedrooms.
Very ambitious, yet concise roundup of a complex subject. Thank you David for these terrific videos about human development as evidenced by actual archaeological remains.
I needed no fire to be lit under me to spark my interest in antiquity, but your presentations add welcome fuel to a fire that's been burning for a long time.
The first farming people to settle in the region are associated with the Neolithic Starčevo culture, which flourished between 6200 and 5200 BC. There are several Starčevo sites in and around Belgrade, including the eponymous site of Starčevo. The Starčevo culture was succeeded by the Vinča culture (5500-4500 BC), a more sophisticated farming culture that grew out of the earlier Starčevo settlements and also named for a site in the Belgrade region (Vinča-Belo Brdo). The Vinča culture is known for its very large settlements, one of the earliest settlements by continuous habitation and some of the largest in prehistoric Europe. Also associated with the Vinča culture are anthropomorphic figurines such as the Lady of Vinča, the earliest known copper metallurgy in Europe, and a proto-writing form developed prior to the Sumerians and Minoans known as the Old European script, which dates back to around 5300 BC. Within the city proper, on Cetinjska Street, a skull of a Paleolithic human dated to before 5000 BC was discovered in 1890. - WIKI
If I do a video about the earliest settlements, these will definitely deserve a mention!
Doc you forgot to mention a requirement for an ancient city is an alien launch pad. Great video.
👽...we come in peace Earthlings 😉
niCe
Loved this... Anthropology has nothing to do with what I do for work or even any of my hobbies, but RUclips and content like this has made me realize I love this stuff
Thank you! I suspect like many others I was expecting Uruk to take the palm, but this is one of the beauties of history: Now I have to start looking into Tell Brak! In a sense, I was not surprised by Jericho's "low" rating, as I was aware of some of the requirements for a 'city', and while I knew it had long been a populated area, the idea that it hadn't quite made city status wasn't a big surprise.
But as I say, now to start looking at ancient Syria and Tell Brak :) Thank you!
Dude has a pleasant speaking voice. I like him.
Subscribed.
This cities definition is a perfect example of something as a layman. I didnt know, that I didn't know. Thank you for all your work and explanations.
I enjoyed the video very much as I am an Ancient History Buff and you are an excellent teacher for my simple mind so thank you~!
Thank you for watching!
Thanks Professor Miano for another fascinating, fact-filled and thought-provoking video. I think one of the underlying theories involved is sometimes referred to s Uniformitarianism. This scientific assumption that natural processes occur and have results in very similar ways under similar conditions. When applied to social science it has to be more tentative. I would call myself cautiously uniformitarian, and I appreciate the cautious way that you apply certain criteria. The list of criteria has the potential flaw that it looks at the development of cities from the perspective of our concept of cities having been dominant for millennia.
In the early 1700's Boston was referred to as a town, and Massachusetts as a colony. Numerous towns have been founded from Boston in the surrounding area. These settlements were not unplanned, groups were sent out from Boston and were required to build public works such as a road to Boston, fences, a common [most have become parks but were originally pasture], a meeting hall, church and school [at first they might be a single multi-use building but were eventually separate buildings. and later an armory. The local government was by town meeting, which still exists and has become steadily more democratic.
In New England, town meetings still exist, but when the voting population becomes too large and meetings become too contentious, a proposal is made to add a permanent administration or Board of Selectmen under the authority of the meeting. At some point, the population becomes to big for even this to become practical so a vote is taken in the town meeting and the board, to petition the state government for incorporation change from town to city and an elected government is established. Unlike other parts of the US, our counties are vestigial, sometimes with no governmental function and without an administration, and sometimes only serve as convenient court districts or regional school districts.
These towns and cities in New England were planned and integrated, so the whole area is now considered one of the US's 11 metropolitan areas rather than one or more independent cities. There is some reason to think that the Indus Valley Civilization(s) might have been similar to this, with meetings held in a swimming pool rather than a meeting house.
I'm sorry for making such a long reply, as I just wanted to illustrate the French saying, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
I was actually expecting Derinkuyu to be on the list. But I learned about Brak. Nice video.
Derinkuyu came much later.
I just ordered a copy of "The Royal game of Ur" from the British museum shop, it is pretty amazing that people had boardgames 5000 years ago that is so similar to games people play to this day like backgammon. ( ruclips.net/video/WZskjLq040I/видео.html ) That is professor Irving Finkel of the British museum playing it against a modern gamer and it sold me at least.
Irving is a great personality. Really loves what he does. I wanted to play the game with someone on a piece of wood but didn't find anyone who was interested to play
@@unrealuknow864 Really? My friends are all over board games so I expect it to be easy to find someone to game with.
Heck, I think if you just bring a game to the pub an afternoon it should be relatively easy to coax someone into trying a game. It looks as fun as dart and other pub games. :)
In worst case there is always gaming conventions.
I like that you define the important word usage.
Thank you Professor Miano for a very informing videocast on the world's earliest cities. We'll never know what life was like in the first cities all those millenia ago, but I've got a feeling that people lived in those cities in much the same way that people do today in our cities: the kids went to school, the father went to work, the mother took care of the home and cooked the food. Some people like myself believe there were doctors, lawyers and policemen and soldiers and kings and queens and every sort of profession we have today albeit without the diplomas and qualifications needed in modern times. It would be interesting to know what someone's dream was when they were young and starting out in life. What would their dreams have been for a good life? We might be surprised to see that their dreams mirrored our own.
I enjoy your channel so very much, Dr. Miano! You visibly enjoy your work so much, but refuse to allow any unnecessary, irrelevant, or conspiracy-theory-related nonsense to get in the way of teaching us actual evidence-based history. That makes you one of the very best historians on YT, hands down! Thank you for all you do! ❤️ ❤️
(I had to giggle when my autocorrect insisted I meant "misnomer," rather than Miano!)
It's great to see your numbers still going up. It's hard to get the truth heard these days. Still thankful to this channel for pulling me out of the alternative theory hell, I mean, rabbit hole I was falling into.
Thank you Dr Miano. Interesting and stimulating as ever.
I am so glad you are doing this channel. There so many erroeous theories out in public venue. I know they are wrong but i dont have enough knowledge or facts to say why. Those people who argue for ancient aliens building things or creating human beings makes me crazy. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Another great video... although I found the honourable mentions more fascinating than the actual top 5 :D
The most out of place artifact in this video is the Funko Pop behind him.
_"What could that figurine be? Similar figurines have also been found in other houses, often carefully organized in shelves. Perhaps the pre-contact Floridians used these Funko Pops as icons for worship. Much is yet to be known. I'll inform about the findings to Ung'Naak at once."_
This is fantastic! I didn't realize this about Tell Brak. Thank you.
Couple of folks mentioned Harappa/ Mohenje.. but you already said they started 2600Bce.. ( isn't it actually known as 3200 Bce start date) But what about the 2yrs back latest found nearby these same Indusvalley location i.e. Raghikhari near Delhi, thats dated 5200-7000 Bce & 4 times larger & very identical designed structures Etc of Harappa & Mohenje Daro & also another 2 new found cities namely, Keelady & AdichNallur both at further south near Madurai, Tamil Nadu with identical structures, Artifacts & writings etc but dated to 2500-3100 Bce. But Raghikhari must qualify for perhaps, even jump to #1 place by its size & way older date etc (but all 3 only 10-20% cleared so far). Is it skipped by mistake or other reasons like too new ?
Tamil is the oldest language in the world. Names like Adam come from there
@@SWOTHDRA I am pretty sure oldest language in the world are caveman languages.
@@vik24oct1991 making somw sounds, its not a language. Go speak with people from sri lanka, they know. We are only so centred on the middle east because of western society and the belief that the bible is fron there so therefore the oldest city should be there and the first civilisation should be there. But this is all a lie. If you look into it, you see that china and the indus valley are much much older. And Im willing to bet that doggerland and the sahara have plenty of secrets still hidden too
@@SWOTHDRA its a language, languages is for communication of ideas, I am pretty sure there are thousands of languages which were developed in early africa which are lot lot older than any of the languages which we hear today, moreover what you said is completely wrong, akkadian, sumerian, egyptian are older than tamil because people from africa first settled in near east before moving to asia, so civilizations first developed there. It is posited that even the people of indus valley were immigrants from near east and there is no prove of tamil being same language as indus valley langauge.
This is very informational. 🙏 subscribed!
Fun fact Nagar in sanskrit means city
@@tusharthegreatest176 thanks for that cool fact!! So Nagaland is “city land?” 😅
Fascinating. While I love learning about middle east antiques, I'd also love to hear more about American antiques. I am not native American, but I hung out with Siletz for decades. I consider myself a friend. Regardless, rock on.
Would love to see you on Joe Rogan! He has had so many people making wild claims (Bright Insight, Randall Carlson, Hancock, etc). It'd be great to show the layperson how much we DO know and is properly documented and investigated.
👏🏻 love this idea
I’ll bet Joe would never do it!
Rogan has those people because he believes their claims. It's not likely he's going to have a guest that proves his opinions are wrong because that's not how celebrities work.
Good comprehensiveness. Lotsa good data available on this channel. Just one blind spot...but invaluable as far as it goes.
not even ONE mention of ancient aliens. thank goodness! wonderful video
👽...we come in peace Earthlings....I'm joking T, isn't great to just hear straight up facts that you can rely on ?. Hit the sub, like, and all that good stuff to help the channel.....peace to ya bud.
@@dazuk1969 Pretty sure it would be more along the lines of "Too bad your amino acids aren't compatible with our amino acids so there's no reason to keep you alive as cattle. Better to just wipe you all out and not deal with your kind."
lovely, we're definitely learning from your long mastery of the subject
1. Lemuria
2. Atlantis
Lemuría = Madagascar??
No.........
Lemuria, Atlantis are Oz are the same thing....which are made up places that never actually existed.
Believing these places are real, is a lot like believing in man in a red suit who lives at the North Pole with a lost race of crafting elves and flying reindeer.
Lemuria was actually a continent made up to account for lemurs only being in Madagascar and India. With continental drift and India being separate until it broke off of Madagascar and then collided with Asia, Lemuria was no longer necessary. The myths we think of with Lemuria today are all from fantasy and science fiction stories that were later appropriated by occultism. As conspiracy types like to say, Do some research and go deep.
@@stephenwilloughby8141
You: "Lemuria was actually a continent made up to account for lemurs only being in Madagascar and India."
Me: There is NO scientific evidence of any land bridge responsible for the migration of lemurs ... from anywhere.
That is simply a myth.
Amazing and fascinating video! Loving the all visual aids, including those Google Earth zoom-ins. 😃
I'd like to see your views on Derinkuyu . I think I spelled that right . The underground city in Turkey . Always been fascinated with that place . If I ever have the money to travel that's where I'm going
Madly in love with your channel
Mesoamerica is more my area then the Andes, but i've had conversations with Andean archeologists that dispute that Caral was ever a city in the strict sense at all, in that it never had a permanent urban population, and was rather a monumental site that housed priests but not a larger population on a permanent basis, who would have visited on a transitory basis for ceremonies. They state that the first true urban site in the Andes would be Chavin de Huantar, which started out as a similar site, but picked up a permanent urban population around 500BC who saw increasing occupational specialization, and that kicked off Andean urbanism on a broader basis at other sites rather then merely having monumental temple complexes as previously. Also, regarding the point of "is it possible to have a city without rulers", I would point to Teotihuacan and Tlaxcala (potentially)
Teotihuacan, a city in Mesoamerica from 100-600AD (existed before then as a smalelr site) had 100,000+ denizens, a massive planned urban grid filled with palaces and large pyramid compounds built from stone and richly painted, toilets and other waterwork systems, yet no royal icnography or tombs and basically the entire population lived in those palace compounds. We do see some references to figures who are often interpreted as rulers in Maya inscriptions thought to be disscussing Teotihuacan, but not everybody agrees on that. It is, however, worth noting that there are what have been identified as higher status palace compounds then others, and the GINI equality index of the city is less absurdly low in more modern studies then previously, so the city probably did have elites, but it's clear SOMETHING weirdly egalitarian was going on at the city (and I don't think you'd find anybody who disputes it's a city). The layout (the planned grid, the fact it was organized around a central road and not plazas), lack of ball courts, and the fact it was multi-ethnic (clear Maya, Zapotec, Gulf Coast, and West Mexican ethnic neighborhoods in the city) is also pretty wierd for a Mesoamerican city.
Tlaxcala was a city (and also a larger kingdom with the same name) in Mesoamerica during the Late Postclassic period. It's layout is also unusual, and suggests a more open egalitarian society; and with more uniform residence sizes and goods. We also know from Conquistador accounts and from Tlaxcalteca people themselves during the 16th and 17th centuries that Tlaxcala was a sort of republic: There were commoners and nobles, at least in theory, but the goverment was primarily a council open to both if they passed tests legislators had to take. Stefan Milo has a video on Tlaxcala i'd reccomend, and I'd also reccomend the comment I left there, which actually notes that some of these attributes are things other Nahua ("Aztec", sort of, culturally; but not politically: Aztec vs Nahua vs Mexica as terms is complex) cities share to an extent too, and that all Nahua states seem to share some of the underlying social/political frameworks, but the relative power that each had and in effect if they were more of a monarchy or a republic varied. (something I didn't put in that comment but wish I did is that even at less egatlitarian, more politically ratrher then just culturally Aztec sites, it's been found that nominally elite goods weren't unheard of at commoner residences: "At home with the Aztecs" recounts how bronze sewing needles, fancy ceramic, chocolate cups, etc have been found in commoner homes even in small villages or medium sized towns.
Interesting stuff. Thank you for sharing!
What a fascinating presentation! So glad this channel showed up in my feed, have a sub!
Thanks and welcome!
I feel a little like with the Pluto debate, there are some rules proposed and little flexibility (support it is a planet btw( I understand certain bars have to be put but even in modern times there are places named cities that I believe is too much of a title for those places while others are called towns and are way more developed. Anyway great video, I'm subscribing.
Thanks, and welcome!
@9:00 Jericho is located on a major fault zone, the Dead Sea Transform fault complex, which in addition to causing significant and destructive earthquakes throughout the periods of human habitation of the area, also brings ground water to the surface, which is the reason humans first found the location useful.
The city of Jerusalem is roughly 25 miles east of the Jericho site, which means that the Jerusalem area has also been rocked by the same earthquakes. There was a major earthquake originating in the Jericho area in the 2920's that did massive damage to at least 1/3rd of the ancient parts of Jerusalem.