Early urbanism, once considered epiphenomenal to “civilization” and “states,” has finally gained a theoretical, conceptual, and methodological position in archaeology. We lack, however, a coherent definition of urbanism, due, in part, to its popularity among social scientists working in a wide range of contexts. This presents a challenge to archaeologists seeking to explain the origins of urbanism. In The Archaeology of Ancient Cities, Glenn Storey tackles these issues from a cross-cultural perspective, reviewing definitions and conceptual issues of urbanism in Chapters 1–3 and case studies in Chapters 4–6. In comparing Old World and New World cities, Storey concludes that “city formation”—whether ancient or modern, primary or secondary—“was messy, full of false starts, and an experiment in every location” (p. 143). This perspective provides both a strong foundation and point of departure for cross-disciplinary studies of urbanism.

Storey discusses population density at length, considering it the chief feature of cities. Using a continuum of population density and city area in Chapter 3, he proposes the following urban typology: micro-urban or pocket cities (small area with high-density settlement; e.g., Pompeii, Uruk, Monte Alban); hyper-urban or super/maximum cities (large area with high-density settlement; e.g., Rome, Teotihuacan); and hypo-urban cities (large area with low-density settlement; e.g. Great Zimbabwe, Maya cities, Greek city-states, and Egyptian riverine cities). This typology is useful for descriptive purposes and general comparisons. The types, however, should not become proxies of certain sociopolitical processes (see below).

Early chapters contain cogent, albeit brief, discussions of “social” aspects of cities—such as urban scaling and collective action—which carry important implications for their formation. Storey conceptualizes cities emerging out of negotiations between different segments of society (p. 37), a position I believe is productive. Negotiation is lost, however, when he associates accretional hyper-urbanism with “top-down political econom[ic]” processes and hypo-urbanism with “bottom-up collective action” (p. 65). Top-down and bottom-up processes were simultaneously at play in cities, meaning that we should consider instead how the two articulated in hyper- and hypo-urban cases. I am wary of two other assertions that Storey makes: first, “states and cities go together” (p. 37) and second, “chiefdoms can produce centers that are definitely proto-urban” (p. 140). Although I agree that cities are present in most so-called state societies, we risk with such statements a return to conceptualizing urbanism as epiphenomenal to politics. If we ask instead why many states emerged where cities developed, and if we consider the urban scaling theory that Storey draws on, we are led to the generative nature of cities and population nucleation.

The latter half of the book covers case studies that highlight the origins, developmental trajectories, governance, space, and lives of inhabitants across diverse cities. From these case studies, Storey concludes that there were no discernible differences between primary and secondary cities. It is worth noting the caveat, however, that primary and secondary status depends in part on one's definition of urbanism. Storey reconsiders these examples of primary and secondary urbanism using his typology of pocket, hyper-, and hypo-cities. This application successfully demonstrates that there were no one-to-one relationships between population density and formation processes (e.g., accretion vs. clustering) or population density and political orientation (e.g., autocratic vs. collective). Consequently, it reaffirms, in contrast to his earlier generalizations, our understanding that there was tremendous variability between urban form and political organization in antiquity.

I find Storey's discussion of “urban culture” in Chapter 6 a significant contribution of this book because it broadens his conceptualization of urbanism beyond population density. In functional definitions of urbanism, urban culture can be thought of as the suite of unique functions serving residents and hinterland. Storey writes that we can also think of urban cultures as settlement universes containing multiple urban settlements. Thus, small altepetl/altepeme (Aztec) and polis/polei (Greek) would be considered urban and situated in urban cultures in this approach, whereas sites such as Cahokia, Jericho, and Çatalhöyük (spelled “Çatal Höyök” in the book) would be classified as proto-cities because they lacked urban peers in their respective settlement universes. Such discussion is productive in that it provides alternatives to categorical approaches to urbanism, and it encourages us to focus on regional and macroregional social transformation.

In sum, this book covers theoretical and methodological perspectives and diverse case studies through accessible writing, making it a nice addition to introductory courses on urbanism. To this end, the exercises provided at the end of each chapter are interesting and informative. Overall, its adherence to neoevolutionary typology is somewhat at odds with more recent approaches to urbanism, yet alternative perspectives and analytical tools are provided, all of which should support fruitful discussion in both teaching and future research.