Why are ancient civilizations always buried underneath new ones? Isn't it easier to add to a city?

Question

I am fascinated when archeologists uncover cities that appear to have been abandoned hastily.

Answer 1

New is not always built over old. You've heard of the Real Estate mantra: location, location, location? The old city was located there for a reason, usually access to drinking water. Old cities were usually destroyed by some catastrophe, such as earth quake, being sacked and destroyed by an invading army. Building on top of old was convenient. Streets were laid out, building stones readily available. In ancient times, everything was done with hand tools, few animals and maybe slaves.
Expanding a city would mean putting in roads and any infrastructure there might be at the time. Central planning, bank financing and all of the complexities that we have today, did not exist in the ancient past.
It was more likely that a new city was built on top of an old one, one person and one building at a time.

Answer 2

Many cities in the past were abandonned for various reasons. Oce this happens, earth worm activity pulls material on the surface under ground quite quickly and the weather does the rest.

Where cities remain inhabited, sites just get redeveloped.

Either way, the past ends up under ground.

Answer 3

Short answer, sandstorms. Longer answer, abandoned cities with accumulate dust, and given time (a few hundred years), the city in question will be buried.

There's also evidence that some ancient cities were intentionally buried.

Answer 4

many in modern cities have been built over. nyc hotlanta portland

Answer 5

Location,They like the area,good water .defenses and when you build from stone or mud,easy to build new.and when an army destroys a city,might take awhile to come back to life