eli5: Why were some ancient cities like Palmyra and Machu Picchu left to ruin and fall apart over hundreds of years instead of being repopulated?
In: 1677
Cities (or better word “settlements”) that die usually do so because the difficulty to maintain them outstrips the benefits of the people living there.
Machu Picchu sits on a difficult mountaintop and was a resort town for a king and cost too much to maintain… so probably whoever inherited it just abandoned it.
Palmyra is in the desert. It probably grew from a local oasis and was conquered many times. But without enough money coming in to sustain it in the desert (food water need to be shipped in) then it will cease to exist as a nice place to live.
This happens continuously. Look at Flint Michigan as a modern day example. Look at Phoenix Arizona as a future example (Phoenix will not last forever and be abandoned like many other southeastern ghost towns)
There are some common reasons:
1.) Historically, cities were often located where there was some sort of important natural resource. If that resource ran short or vanished, the city would decline or be abandoned. It could be water, natural resources, minerals, quarries, etc. There are many abandoned ghost towns across the U.S which were abandoned once the resource they were built to exploit ran out (coal, oil, gold, etc.).
2.) Many cites were built along trade routes. When those routes moved or were abandoned due to cultural or technological change, those cities declined or were abandoned. I believe shifting trade routes were one reason why Palmyra declined, IIRC.
3.) Some places declined because of the loss of political importance. Imperial capitals would lose population once an empire was no longer to funnel vast resources from remote areas into an imperial core and could not sustain as high a population. Rome is an example of this.
4.) Some cities were poorly located, which hastened their demise once people no longer had a reason to live there. As others pointed out, I believe Macchu Picchu was less of a true city and more of a fortress estate, somewhat like Megeddo in Israel which was destroyed by the Romans. Cities tend to get built on waterways, coasts or lowlands which are easy to transport resources to. Towns located elsewhere or in remote locations are at a big disadvantage.
5.) Sometimes cities are razed or destroyed by invading armies. Carthage was the most famous example of this. Baghdad was razed by the Mongols who destroyed the canals the city relied on. Rome was sacked several times over the years through the sixteenth century, all of which caused population decline.
Those are some reasons off the top of my head. I’m sure there are others.
There’s a Youtube Channel, Fall of Civilizations, dedicated to just this question:
Macchu Pichu (Inca): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GkNOT2Q2hk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GkNOT2Q2hk)
I don’t think he’s done one on Palmyra, but there was a recent one on Petra, which is geographically and timeline wise kinda close:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfFq02pK4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfFq02pK4s)
One possible reason is that these cities were built by civilizations that were conquered or otherwise declined. The fall of the civilization that built and inhabited these cities would have led to a loss of population and a lack of people to maintain and repopulate the cities.
Another reason is that these cities were built in remote or inhospitable locations, which would have made them difficult to access and maintain over time. Palmyra, for example, was built in the desert and Machu Picchu is located in the Andes mountains. This would have made it difficult for people to settle in and maintain the cities, leading to their eventual abandonment.
Climate change and environmental factors like drought, earthquakes, and landslides could have also played a role in the decline of these ancient cities. These natural disasters would have made it difficult to maintain the infrastructure of the cities and make them inhabitable.
Lastly, looting and treasure hunting have played a huge role in the fall of these ancient cities. Many people have taken away artifacts and ruins from these cities, which have led to the deterioration of the structures.
Lots in here about maintenance and the like. Bigger and simpler answer, they stop being useful. Boom towns around resources, religious centers of religions that fall out of favor, trading hubs when the trade routes move. Cities spring up where there are opportunities and a need for people and when those opportunities and needs dwindle so does the city.
Big and complex civilizations tend to fill up with beurocracies and other non ‘domestic product’ industries. When the society collapses, either from another military coming in and taking over, or environmental problems (which often causes the former to be more likely) there’s nothing there for population in the capitol to do.
Rome was like that for centuries after. At one point there were only some 20-30 thousand inhabitants were once lived a half million. They diverted a bunch of rivers to keep water constantly flowing through most homes…. Imagine if every house in town left their tap on 24/7 (mostly it was apartment buildings with a fountain) private mansions and bathhouses.
They also had huge fires going 24/7 to heat all those bathhouses and buildings. So they also deforested the land.
Rome had most of their water supply disrupted, even the government left town to other towns.
I think most does, and they become modern cities like Rome. The ones that got preserved are abandoned because there isn’t any reason for there to be a city anymore.
For example, if Vegas lost water or California allowed mega casinos in the 70s, no more Vegas.
It’s very hard to rebuild Palmyra after Aurelian ordered it razed, it’s people either enslaved or told to never return under pain of death.
Aurelian made it abundantly clear that Palmyra would never return to success because of the fact he had to siege it twice. It was personal on that front.
As for Machu Picchu, I thought it was abandoned due to the Spanish conquest diverting resources away from what was actually more of a palace for royalty than an actual city.
When a culture is annihilated survivors tend to flee. If they are able to reproduce, they warn their children about the dead cities and create superstitions as to why they should never return. Sometimes this is practical to avoid whatever destroyed the city in the first place. Worse yet, there may not be anyone left alive who remembers the city and it is consumed by the forests. Westerners are lucky to find what’s left of these metropolises.
The long and short of it, is it was abandoned, this means the infrastructure to support it is also gone.
The second reason is that it was forgotten, at least by the people who had the means to repopulate it.
Third reason kinda builds on the first, there was no reason to go back, its easier to build a new city, then to fix an old city.
Latest Answers