The second lecture in Doug Allen's History of Urban Form series moves from "what is a city" to "where did cities come from?" It concludes Lecture 01 and the fundamental elements of cities — Density & Form. Lecture 02 begins by exploring the ancient origins of cities as hubs of domestication, agricultural settlements, and trade. It compares commonalities and differences between several ancient Near East proto-cities, including Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Ur, Uruk, Assur, Bam, and El Amarna.

1. History of Urban Form
Density
A. Measures based upon people or houses. Most common measures:
1. Number of persons per unit of land (expressed as people per acre, hectare, square mile, square kilometer, etc.
2. Dwelling Units per unit of land (expressed as dwelling units per acre, hectare, square mile, square kilometer, etc.
3. Size of lot or parcel (an extension of no. 2, expressed as ¼ acre lot, ½ acre lot etc.
B. Measures based on constitutional frame (infrastructure)
1. Intersections per unit of land (expressed as intersections per acre, hectare, square mile, square kilometer, etc.
2. Total length of road or street per unit of land
3. Block density
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

2. COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

3. Housing Unit Density by Distance from the city's CBD
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
Distance (Miles)
HU/Acre
Atlanta Chicago New York
Density Gradients for Three Metro Areas
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

4. Observation: Since 1928, Block sizes have increased by a factor of 3.2 from the average block size prior to 1928.
Pre 1928 Block Size Post 1928 Block Size
avg. max avg max
acres acres acres acres
1 Atlanta, GA 3.70 8.26 1 Atlanta, GA 22.87 44.49
2 Boston, MA 3.09 4.13 2 Boston, MA 9.45 14.46
3 Baltimore, Md 3.29 5.78 3 Baltimore, Md 14.93 22.72
4 Charleston, S.C. 4.12 6.07 4 Charleston, S.C. 16.89 25.25
5 Chicago, Illinois 3.51 4.96 5 Chicago, Illinois 14.74 19.10
6 Los Angeles, CA 4.41 7.89 6 Los Angeles, CA 8.01 16.08
7 New York, N.Y. (Manhattan) 2.60 3.67 7 New York, N.Y. (Manhattan) 7.72 13.31
8 Omaha, Nebraska 4.34 8.26 8 Omaha, Nebraska 8.27 13.42
9 Portland, Oregon 1.92 3.72 9 Portland, Oregon 2.69 4.24
10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3.07 6.33 10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5.03 5.88
Average 3.41 5.91 11.06 17.90
Median 3.40 5.93 8.86 15.27
Std. Dev 0.79 1.80 6.14 11.42
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

5. Observation 2: the standard deviation of average block size in the following selected cities has increased from .79 to 6.14
from pre-1928 subdivision to post -1928 subdivision.
Pre 1928 Block Size Post 1928 Block Size
avg. max avg max
acres acres acres acres
1 Atlanta, GA 3.70 8.26 1 Atlanta, GA 22.87 44.49
2 Boston, MA 3.09 4.13 2 Boston, MA 9.45 14.46
3 Baltimore, Md 3.29 5.78 3 Baltimore, Md 14.93 22.72
4 Charleston, S.C. 4.12 6.07 4 Charleston, S.C. 16.89 25.25
5 Chicago, Illinois 3.51 4.96 5 Chicago, Illinois 14.74 19.10
6 Los Angeles, CA 4.41 7.89 6 Los Angeles, CA 8.01 16.08
7 New York, N.Y. (Manhattan) 2.60 3.67 7 New York, N.Y. (Manhattan) 7.72 13.31
8 Omaha, Nebraska 4.34 8.26 8 Omaha, Nebraska 8.27 13.42
9 Portland, Oregon 1.92 3.72 9 Portland, Oregon 2.69 4.24
10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3.07 6.33 10 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 5.03 5.88
Average 3.41 5.91 11.06 17.90
Median 3.40 5.93 8.86 15.27
Std. Dev 0.79 1.80 6.14 11.42
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

6. COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation
Street and block density
Clockwise from upper left
• Paris
• Brasilia
• Istanbul
• Atlanta

7. History of Urban Form
Form
Structure of Streets and Blocks
.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

8. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
B L O C K D E N D R I T I C
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

9. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
PUBLIC SPACE
B L O C K D E N D R I T I C
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

10. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
GROWTH
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

11. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
Baghdad: Historic Center c. 1400 AD
Dendritic System of streets within larger “super blocks"
Baghdad: early 20th century suburb
Striated Blocks with superimposed radial avenues
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

12. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
Atlanta: Historic Center c. 1840
Block with rotated grid
Atlanta: Midtown / early 20th c. suburb c. 1900
Deformed Block with rotated grid
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

13. Morphological (Form)
COMPARISON
Atlanta: Late 20th c. suburb
Dendritic Pattern with “super block”
Baghdad: Historic Center c. 1400 AD
Dendritic System of streets within larger “super blocks"
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

14. Assur c. 1200 BCE Damascus: Old City as shown c. 800 AD
Philadelphia: 1685 AD
3130'190'
170'
1240'
1370'
1680'
460'
700'
2780'
1530'
5520'
6770'
7540'
690'
2150' 1970' 2640'
1730'
790'
1280'
Windward (Atlanta) 1985 AD
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Constitution and Representation

15. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Lecture 02: Origins of the City: Orient and Occident
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

16. Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City
HORSES
CATTLE
GOATS
SHEEP
HORSES: Steppes,
Ukraine and Southern
Russia
CATTLE: Northern
India, Indus Valley
GOATS: Northern Iran,
Iraq, Kurdistan
SHEEP: Northern Iran,
Kurdistan, and
Mesopotamia
SHEEP
GOATS
GOATS

17. Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
7,000 BCE
Catal Huyuk
9,000 BCE
Jericho
4,000 BCE
4,000 BCE
Ur
Uruk
3,000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City
9,000 BCE
Gobekli Tepe
Permanent
human
settlements,
Neolithic
period
Cities and
proto-cites.

18. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Jericho: 8000 – 3000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

19. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Jericho
Jericho: Tell or mound at the site of the original city dating to 8000 BCE. Settlement at Jericho (Jerich or Tel-es-Sultan) was dated by Kathleen Kenyon to extend to 8000-9000 BCE. Occupation is
Generally assigned to three periods prior to the Bronze Age or c. 3000 BCE.
1. Natufian: Proto-Neolithic -- construction at the site apparently began before the invention of agriculture, with construction of stone Natufian culture structures beginning earlier than 9000 BC.
2. PPN A: Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, 8350 BC to 7370 BC. Sometimes called Sultanien. A four hectare settlement surrounded by a stone wall, with a stone tower in the centre of one wall. Round mud-
brick houses. Use of domesticated emmer wheat, barley and pulses and hunting of wild animals.
3. PPN B: Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, 7220 BC to 5850 BC (but carbon-14-dates are few and early). Expanded range of domesticated plants. Possible domestication of sheep. Apparent cult involving
the preservation of human skulls, with facial features reconstructed from plaster and eyes set with shells in some cases.
After the PPN A settlement-phase there was a settlement hiatus of several centuries, then the PPN B settlement was founded on the eroded surface of the tell. The architecture consisted of
rectilinear buildings made of mudbricks on stone foundations. The mudbricks were loaf-shaped with deep thumb prints to facilitate bounding. No building has been excavated in its entirety. Normally,
several rooms cluster around a central courtyard. There is one big room (6.5 x 4 m and 7 x 3 m) with internal divisions, the rest are small, presumably used for storage. The rooms have red or pinkish
terrazzo-floors made of lime. Some impressions of mats made of reeds or rushes have been preserved. The courtyards have clay floors.

20. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Jericho
Modern Jericho looking east toward the Jordan Valley from above the Tell
Walls datable to the early Bronze Age or Chalcolithic Period, 3300 BCE
Excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in the late 1940’s, the material record
indicates a substantial break in occupation beginning around 1150 BCE.
Modern Jericho dates to the 12th century AD. Although the walls shown
here date to a period much later than the Neolithic period, Jericho , along
with Catal Huyuk in Turkey can claim the current position as the oldest
“cities” in the world.
Photo courtesy of the Bryn Mawr Collection

21. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Jericho
Chalcolithic Period walls at Jericho c. 3300 BCE Defensive work or tower, Jericho 3300 BCE

22. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Catal Huyuk: 7000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

23. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk 7000 BCE

24. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk c. 7000 BCE

25. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk c. 7000 BCE

26. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk c. 7000 BCE

27. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk c. 7000 BCE

28. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Catal Huyuk c. 7000 BCE

29. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Trade and the Development of Writing
5000 – 3000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

30. 1000 BCE
Bronze Age Copper Age in Niger Bantu expansion Late Bronze Age
Early Iron Age
Development of
Indian Iron Age
Chinese Bronze Age
2000 BCE
Bell beaker Chalcolithic
corded ceramic
domestication of the
horse
Neolithic of Ticht /
Tenerean
Middle Bronze
Age (Sumer)
Indus Valley civilization
writing
Chinese Neolithic
of Longshan
3000 BCE
enclosed villages
first megaliths
Chalcolithic
of Central Europe
Hunter-gatherer art
of South Africa
Early Bronze Age Regionalization Era
4000 BCE
Lower Neolithic
Danubian Neolithic
Writing
Mediterranean
and Egyptian Neolithic
Neolithic in East Africa
Writing
Uruk period
Chalcolithic
(copper metallurgy)
Writing
Mehrgarh
Indus Valley
Writing
Neolithic
of Yang-Shao
rice-growing (?)
5000 BCE
Cardial and Linear
Pottery
(agriculture, stock-
rearing, Pottery)
Tardenoisian cultures
Starčevo and Vinča
culture
agriculture, stock-rearing
(pigs, bovine, sheep)
Neolithic of the
Sahara/Sahel
Ubaid period
ceramic ware
Cyprus
Mehrgarh
Hongshan culture of
Northeast Asia (ca. 4700
BC/6700 BP)
7000 BCE Sauveterrian cultures
(gathering of legumes)
Neolithic (Greece and
the Eastern
Mediterranean )
Sesklo and Choirokoitia
Neolithic with ceramic
Ubaid period
Mehrgarh
Neolithic of northern
China
8000 BCE
Backed point
culture
Wiltonian
Pre-ceramic B
Pre-ceramic A
Neolithic in Turkey
(wheat, barley)
hunter gatherers
of Jōmon
(ancient Japan)
TIME Europe
North Africa,
West Africa and
Sahara
Central Africa,
South and East
Africa
Middle East
South Asia, and
Central Asia
East Asia and
South-East Asia
Comparative Time Line

31. Comparative Time Line
Writing
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

32. Trade :
Trade means contact with
other people. Along with
trade of goods is the need
to record inventories, record
exchange value, etc.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

33. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Writing and Language Groups
5000 – 3000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

34. Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
6000-4000 BCE
Indo-European
Speaking People
Semitic Speaking
People
Around 4,500 years ago. A
large migration of language
groups occurs. While no
evidence of war or other forcible
take-over has been found, a
sudden revolution in agriculture
and language occurs in
Europe..Cattle, Sheep, Goats,
Pigs, etc. appear. Wheat
appears in north Africa and
southern Europe. This would
indicate the transport of
agricultural practices migrating
out of two “hearths”, one in
Africa, the other in Western
Asia.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

35. Origins of the City
Areas of Linguistic influence
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
S E M I T I C
The Semitic family is a member
of the larger Afroasiatic family,
all of whose other five or more
branches are based in Africa.
Largely for this reason, the
ancestors of Proto-Semitic
speakers are believed by many
to have first arrived in the
Middle East from Africa,
possibly as part of the
operation of the “Saharan
pump”, around the late
Neolithic Period. 9500 BC
Note: The Saharan Pump
refers to the cyclical drying of
the Sahara, the last being
associated with the recession
of the Glacial Ice Age. The
theory is that African languages
moved northward and became
isolated in the Nile Valley,
Coastal North Africa, and the
Levant (Eastern Mediterranean)
around 10-12,000 BC.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

36. I N D O - E U R O P E A N
Origins of the City
Areas of Linguistic influence
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
Around 4500 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

37. I N D O - E U R O P E A N
S E M I T I C
Directions of Cultural Exchange
Areas of
Substantial
Cultural
Interchange
Origins of the City
Areas of Linguistic influence
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

38. Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau c. 2000 BCE
7,000 BCE
9,000 BCE
4,000 BCE
4,000 BCE
3,000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City
Alphabetic writing where a
symbol represents a
“Phoentic” sound
Hieroglyphic writing where
a symbol represents a
word, or multiple words.
Cuneiform writing where multiple
lines and dots represent highly
stylized pictographs,
representing both words and
numbers, grouped as concepts.
These later transformed into
syllable sounds .

39. Semitic
Modern
Indo-European:
Greek,
Latin Based, (Romance)
Celtic,
Germanic,
Hindi,
Farsi,
Indo-European
Father: Pater, Pita, Pedar
Mother: Mater, Matar
Sky: Akasa
Heart: Kart
Foot: Pad, Ped
King: Rex, Rix, Raj
Modern
Semitic:
Arabic
Hebrew
Geʕez (Ethiopian)
Amharic
Semitic
Father: Ab, Abt , Abba
Mother: Umm, Ima, (ee-ma)
Sky: Samaa ,
Heart: Alb, Elb, Lev
Foot: Regel, Regl
King: Malek, Malik, Melech
Indo-European
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

40. Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
to the
Iranian Plateau
I N D O - E U R O P E A N
S E M I T I C
Catal Huyuk: c. 7000 BCE
Jericho c. 8000 BCE
Hattusas 3000 BCE
Uruk 4000 BCE
Ur
Directions of Cultural Exchange
Areas of
Substantial
Cultural
Interchange
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

41. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Uruk and Ur: 4000 – 2000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

42. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Uruk c. 4000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

43. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Uruk
Mounds formed in braided river deltas after the recession of
the Ice in approximately 9,000-10,000 BCE. Cultivation of
grasses (wheat, barley, rye) began in the semi-dry areas
between the Tigris and Euphrates. Urban civilization appears
here around 6000 BCE. Writing appears about 3500, BCE
Uruk, one of the oldest settlements dates to about 4000 BCE.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

44. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Ur c. 4000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

45. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Ur c. 4000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

46. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
UR
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

47. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
UR
Tomb Citadel / Ziggurat
Residential Blocks
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

48. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Uruk c. 3000 BCE
Reconstruction of
Temple Complex
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

49. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
LARSA;
Residential buildings grouped
around courtyards. This ancient
house type will form the basis of
residential architecture in the
Mediterranean. Egyptian
Houses of similar age were
frontal. That is, they opened
onto a “front” garden or yard.
(See Tel el-Amarna)
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

50. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
Assur c. 1200 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

51. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
UR
UR: The numbers represent how many rooms distant from the street
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

52. Origins of the City
Mesopotamia
UR
UR: The numbers represent how many rooms distant from the street
Shops and markets (retail)
School
Residential
Religious
Land Use
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

53. Origins of the City
BAM, Iran
The Holy City of Bam, one of the best
preserved medieval cities in the world was
destroyed by an earthquake recently.
Although Bam is much more recent, the
formal attributes are similar to the cities of
ancient Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Note
the clearly defined citadel on the
promontory and a secondary defense wall
enclosing the valley below.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

54. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Egypt: 4000 – 1000 BCE
El Amarna: 1350 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

55. Origins of the City
Egypt
4000-1000 BCE
Pharaonic Egypt 4500-300 BCE
Urbanization in Egypt took a different form than that
of either Harrapa or the ancient Mesopotamian
civilizations. Perhaps because of the Nile itself, a long
thin band of fertile land isolated by the desert, Egypt
was relatively secure from foreign invasion. Unified
settlements under Pharaonic control and a unified
religion were distributed along the Nile Valley from the
Delta to the land of “Kush”, ancient Nubia, (present
day Sudan)
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

56. Origins of the City
Egypt
Giza
Workers Village
Dr. Mark Lehner of Harvard University
working with famed Egyptian
Archaeologist Dr. Zahi Hawass has
recently excavated the workers
settlement on the plain of Giza, near
the great pyramid complex. These
excavations have substantially altered
our thinking about the construction of
the Pyramid / Sphinx complex at
Giza, particularly in relation to the
belief that these monuments were
constructed by slave labor. Instead,
the town that supported the
construction appears to have been
stratified into an artisan section, a
royal or dynastic section, and a
worker section. The worker section is
of particular interest as the sleeping
arrangements were communal.
Organized like a large house, the
“bedrooms” were actually long
porches or loggias. Large kitchens,
dining halls, baths, etc. indicate a kind
of communal religious organization.
Separated from this, another
settlement appears to have housed
the families of the workers along with
what could best be described as
“middle class” residences.
The Great Pyramid is shown under construction. The Sphinx is ghosted-in on the plateau overlooking an artificial harbor. The urban complex is
shown in the lower center of the drawing and the worker’s village is directly behind the construction site between the two pyramids.
Drawing by M. Lehner, Harvard Magazine, p.47
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

57. Origins of the City
Egypt
Giza
In short, Lehner and Hawass have developed a
working hypothesis that the Pyramids, in a
sense, built Egypt, and not the other way
around. Put another way, a similar
phenomenon appears in Florence in the
Renaissance, with the construction of the
Duomo at Santa Maria del Fiore. Brunelleschi
design was so complex, requiring the complete
re-organization of labor, the development of
new machines for hauling equipment and
material, that it produced, in effect, a kind of
school for artisans. Taken together with the
financial organization and systems organization,
the Duomo, in a very real sense, built the
renaissance. Could the same be said for early
Pharaonic Egypt? Possibly so.
The two great pyramids loom in the background
over Lehner and Hawass’ “Millennium Dig”. In
the upper middle is the wall of the residential
compound, between the vegetation and the van,
appearing as a stone ridge. The individual
houses and blocks are in the foreground.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

58. Origins of the City
Egypt
Giza
Workers “dormitory”
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

59. Origins of the City
Egypt
Amarna Complex
c. 1300 BCE
Unlike its Mesopotamian or Hittite counter-parts, the Egyptian
City tended to consist of a series of related parts, distributed over
a relatively large area, all of which faced the Nile. Such a
distributed form can be explained by the dependence of Egyptian
Civilization, then as now, upon the flood plain of the River. With
the desert acting as an almost impenetrable barrier, defensive
walls were not as critical. Though walls most certainly existed for
other reasons. Rather, the urban component tended to cluster at
the juncture between the arable land associated with the flood
plain and the river terrace at the edge of the arid, non-arable
land; the fertile land being subject to flood as well as too valuable
to build on.
The Royal; compound, complete with Akhenaton's Temple
believed to have been dedicated to Atun-Ra lies in the center.
The cluster of blocks just above it is a residential quarter divided
by a large street. A second palace appears to the north of that.
Areas in between have yet to be fully excavated. While the
evidence is thin, it is expected that future excavations will reveal
that this is a complex urban pattern divided similarly to Giza, into
precincts associated with both land use (residential vs. religious)
as well as by type of people (artisan vs. worker, etc.) To the
south of the dynastic compound is a walled city arranged in a
pattern not unlike the fragment immediately to the north of the
Great Temple, but with larger volumes of space implied in the
remains of the walls. Most of this area is unexcavated. In
between, there is evidence of cultivate plots, irrigated by T-canals
branching from the Nile.
Again, the significance of this model lies in stark contrast to
almost all other urban forms in the ancient world. As such, the
Egyptian patterns would not, in their entirety, exert much
influence outside of Egypt. Taken as individualized organization
schemes, however, it would appear that the internal organization
of streets and regularized blocks possibly found its way
northward into the Mediterranean where it exerted some
influence over Minoan palace compounds and support cities on
Crete.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

60. Origins of the City
Egypt
Amarna Complex
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

61. Origins of the City
Egypt
Amarna Complex B
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

62. Origins of the City
Egypt
Amarna Complex C
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

63. Origins of the City
Egypt
Kahun
Housing Quarters with
Market (A)?
(A)
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

64. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Indus Valley
Mohenjo-Daro- c. 2500 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

65. Origins of the City:
Harrapan Civilization
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

66. Origins of the City
INDUS VALLEY
Harrapa and Mohenjo-Daro, c. 2500 BCE
The Indus Civilization, also called the Harappan Civilization [1], flourished about four thousand years ago in the north-western parts of
India and Pakistan along the valley of the Indus River, the main river of the region. However, as was discovered later on, the civilization
extended far beyond the limits of the valley — from Sutkagen-dor of south Baluchistan in the west to Alamgirpur of Uttar Pradesh in the
east; and from Raopur upon the sub-Himalayan foothills in the north to Bhagatrav on the estuary of the Kim in the south (Fig. 1). In other
words, the Indus Valley Civilization covered an area of 1000miles from west to east, and about 700miles from north to south; and it will
not be surprising if future discoveries widen the horizons of the civilization still further (Lal, 1975). This is an area much greater than that
jointly occupied by its contemporary Egyptian and Mesopotamian Civilizations (Lal, 1975), and considerably larger than modern Pakistan
(Bridget and Raymond Allchin, 1982; 167). At present, about 1000 sites have been identified that belonged to the different phases of the
Indus Civilization (Rao, 1991). Previously, scholars held the opinion that the contribution of the Indus Civilization was insignificant to the
history of civilization, and that the Harappan Civilization was an isolated phenomenon (Wheeler, 1968). However, Piggot (1950),
McCown (1957), Vats (1974), Sankalia (1974), Allchin (1982) and others have quite reasonably established its connections with other
contemporary civilizations (Rao, 1991) of the region. However, as was discovered later on, the civilization extended far beyond the limits
of the valley — from Sutkagen-dor of south Baluchistan in the west to Alamgirpur of Uttar Pradesh in the east; and from Raopur upon
the sub-Himalayan foothills in the north to Bhagatrav on the estuary of the Kim in the south (Fig. 1). In other words, the Indus Valley
Civilization covered an area of 1000miles from west to east, and about 700miles from north to south; and it will not be surprising if future
discoveries widen the horizons of the civilization still further (Lal, 1975). This is an area much greater than that jointly occupied by its
contemporary Egyptian and Mesopotamian Civilizations (Lal, 1975), and considerably larger than modern Pakistan (Bridget and
Raymond Allchin, 1982; 167). At present, about 1000 sites have been identified that belonged to the different phases of the Indus
Civilization (Rao, 1991). Previously, scholars held the opinion that the contribution of the Indus Civilization was insignificant to the history
of civilization, and that the Harappan Civilization was an isolated phenomenon (Wheeler, 1968). However, Piggot (1950), McCown
(1957), Vats (1974), Sankalia (1974), Allchin (1982) and others have quite reasonably established its connections with other
contemporary civilizations (Rao, 1991).
The Indus Civilization was an urban civilization. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were probably the largest Harappan cities. The found
artifacts of the excavation sites show that these cities might have a capacity to have a wide habitational spectrum.[2] All these cities
were well-planned with neatly laid streets, and some of them supposedly [3]had gridiron layout (Wheeler 1966: 23). They were invariably
protected against flood for which burnt bricks played an important role (Bridget and Raymond Allchin, 1982: 167). Though there are
some differences in opinions on the planning of the public buildings, like the Granaries (Fentress 1976: 133-83; also see Jansen 1979)
in these cities, the overall picture is one of regimentation to some degree.
Mahbub Rashid, “The Dimensions of the Harappan City of Mohenjo-daro and Their Possible Relations to the Harappan System of
Proportion”, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1995
(1.) According to Gregory L. Possehl (1984), both of these terms, 'Harappan' or 'Indus' as in 'Harappan Civilization' or 'Indus Civilization'
can be justified in some ways, neither of them is without its shortcomings. He writes, "For example, the very notion of the 'Indus
Civilization in Saurashtra' is possibly out of place given the fact that Saurashtra is reasonably beyond the geographic bounds of the
Indus Valley, as are Haryana, Indian Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh — other regions within which 'Indus' remains have been found.
But when John Marshall coined the term, I suspect that he was reacting against the even more parochial character of the concept of an
'Harappan Civilization' and found that the larger geographic context of the greater Indus riverine system was simply more appropriate"
(Possehl, 1984).
[2] Lambrick has made a convincing case for a figure of 35,000 at Mohenjo-daro, based upon comparison with the population of a city of
comparable area in Sind in 1841. An independent estimate by Fairservis suggests a slightly higher figure of 41,000. As Harappa
appears to have been of roughly equivalent size, its population may well have been more or less the same, but Fairservis has suggested
a figure of 23,500 for the lower city of Harappa, excluding the citadel (Bridget and Raymond Allchin, 1982: 180).
[3]I use supposedly because it is a controversial issue.
The earliest deposits on the site go back to
3300 B.C. and the area seems to have been
continuously inhabited ever since.
Archaeologists think that ancient Harappa was
the urban center dominating the upper Indus
region, much like Mohenjo-daro dominated the
lower Indus Valley and Ganweriwala might
have been the urban center for what is now
Rajasthan.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

67. Origins of the City
INDUS VALLEY
Harrapa and Mohenjo-Daro
The earliest deposits on the site
go back to 3300 B.C. and the
area seems to have been
continuously inhabited ever since.
Archaeologists think that ancient
Harappa was the urban center
dominating the upper Indus
region, much like Mohenjo-daro
dominated the lower Indus Valley
and Ganweriwala might have
been the urban center for what is
now Rajasthan.
Mohenjo-daro c. 1800 BCE. Entrance Gate at Royal Citadel.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

68. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
Archaeological map of excavations
at Mohenjo-Daro
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

69. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

70. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
Area “HR”
Excavated
by Wheeler
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

71. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
Abstracted diagram of
streets and lanes,
showing cellular
units
of subdivision within
the urban
structure.
From Mahbub Rashid, “The Dimensions of the Harappan City of Mohenjo-daro and Their Possible Relations to the Harappan System of Proportion”, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1995
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

72. Arch 4151: History of Urban Form
Georgia Institute of Technology
College of Architecture
Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
The suggested subdivision pattern of the
blocks in the HR area according to the
present layout of lanes and streets in the
area. Dimensions are in English Feet.
Rashid, 1996

73. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
Houses of the HR and VS
areas of Mohenjo-daro show
that they were built based on
a simple system of the
multiplication of a basic
dimension.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

74. Origins of the City
Harrapan
Mohenjo-Daro
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

75. COA 6151
ARCH 4151
The History of Urban Form
Anatolia
Hittite c. 2500-1000 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

76. Origins of the City:
Hattusas (Hittite)
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

77. Origins of the City
Hattusas c. 6000 -1200 BCE
c. 3000 BCE
The early settlers of Hattusas spoke a
language with the same name. It belongs
to no other known family and scholars call
it Hattic to distinguish it from Hittite.
Hittite is an Indo-European language and
probably arrived with Indo-European
conquerors, although details of this
"conquest" are lacking.
Indo-European names appear at Kanesh
before 1850 BCE, and it is possible that
the native Hattic people made up the
ruling class or even the entire population
during this period, but this cannot be
proven.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

78. Origins of the City
Hattusas c. 3000 -1200 BCE
c. 3000-2000 BCE
c. 2000-1400 BCE
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

79. Origins of the City
Hattusas c. 3000 -1200 BCE
c. 2000-1400 BCE
c. 3000-2000 BCE
c. 1400-1100 BCE
The first writing from the site are clay
tablets with Old Assyrian cuneiform.
These demonstrate the presence of
Assyrian merchants at the city, then called
Hattus, around 1800 BCE. The largest
Assyrian trading center in Anatolia was at
Kanesh, which flourished from 1950 BCE
to 1850 BCE (end of First Intermediate
Period and beginning of Twelfth Dynasty),
was destroyed, and then became active
again around 1820 BCE and lasted
another two generations (late 12th
Dynasty). Assyrian trading at Hattusas is
contemporary only with the later period.
The merchants lived in the lower part of
the city, which extended up to the great
hill, whereupon the king's palace was
probably located. The entire city was
destroyed, probably by a King Anittas of
Kussara sometime after 1800 BCE. A
Hittite text supposed to have been written
by him describes his conquests in
Anatolia, noting he destroyed Hattusas,
killed its King Piyusti, and cursed the city's
site.
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

80. Origins of the City
Hattussas (Htattush) c. 3000 -1000 BCE
Catal Huyuk
?
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

81. Crete c. 2000 BCE
Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

82. Crete c. 2000 BCE
Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

83. Crete c. 2000 BCE
Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City

84. Crete
c. 2000 BCE
Origins of the City
Eastern Mediterranean
COA 6151: History of Urban Form
Origins of the City