Ancient and modern cities aren't so different

Ancient and modern cities aren't so different
The underlying organizational ingredients of modern cities were present in ancient settlements in the Basin of Mexico. Credit: Gabriel Garcia for the Santa Fe Institute

Despite notable differences in appearance and governance, ancient human settlements function in much the same way as modern cities, according to new findings by researchers at the Santa Fe Institute and the University of Colorado Boulder.

Previous research has shown that as grow in population, so do their efficiencies and productivity. A city's population outpaces its development of urban infrastructure, for example, and its production of goods and services outpaces its population. What's more, these patterns exhibit a surprising degree of mathematical regularity and predictability, a phenomenon called "urban scaling."

But has this always been the case?

SFI Professor Luis Bettencourt researches urban dynamics as a lead investigator of SFI's Cities, Scaling, and Sustainability research program. When he gave a talk in 2013 on urban scaling theory, Scott Ortman, now an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at CU Boulder and a former Institute Omidyar Fellow, noted that the trends Bettencourt described were not particular to modern times. Their discussion prompted a research project on the effects of city size through history.

To test their ideas, the team examined archaeological data from the Basin of Mexico (what is now Mexico City and nearby regions). In the 1960s—before Mexico City's population exploded—surveyors examined all its ancient settlements, spanning 2000 years and four cultural eras in pre-contact Mesoamerica.

Using this data, the research team analyzed the dimensions of hundreds of ancient temples and thousands of ancient houses to estimate populations and densities, size and construction rates of monuments and buildings, and intensity of site use.

Their results, published in the new open-access journal Science Advances this month, indicate that the bigger the ancient settlement, the more productive it was.

"It was shocking and unbelievable," says Ortman. "We were raised on a steady diet telling us that, thanks to capitalism, industrialization, and democracy, the modern world is radically different from worlds of the past. What we found here is that the fundamental drivers of robust socioeconomic patterns in modern cities precede all that."

Bettencourt adds: "Our results suggest that the general ingredients of productivity and population density in human societies run much deeper and have everything to do with the challenges and opportunities of organizing human social networks."

Though excited by the results, the researchers see the discovery as just one step in a long process. The team plans to examine settlement patterns from ancient sites in Peru, China, and Europe and study the factors that lead urban systems to emerge, grow, or collapse.


Explore further

Ancient settlements and modern cities follow same rules of development

More information: "Settlement scaling and increasing returns in an ancient society," by S.G. Ortman , Science Advances, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400066
Provided by Santa Fe Institute
Citation: Ancient and modern cities aren't so different (2015, February 20) retrieved 18 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-ancient-modern-cities.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1404 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 20, 2015
The functioning of cities depends on the functioning of their occupants, while the appearances of cities depend on the material science (i.e. automobiles and building techniques). The material science evolves much faster than the population.

Feb 21, 2015
When population increases you have more people trying to make a living, so "production of goods and services outpaces its population". That only remains true until the whole thing crashes because of population and/or other pressures. Disease, crop failures, war or just plain overpopulation, etc., will hit eventually. Currently I vote for overpopulation, we've conquered too many diseases and created uber-efficient crops and harvesting techniques. Too many people are pushing out kids simply because that's what animals do when they are well-fed. Look at the whitetail deer population in the US, for example. The population grows until they destroy their own habitat from over-grazing and you end up with a bunch of skinny deer and a whole bunch of dead ones. Then the process starts over again. Why? Because we killed off their natural predators. We've done the same for ourselves and it's only a matter of time before we start getting skinny. "Soylent Green" was written a long time ago...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more