There were a couple of comments referring to cities as population sinks. This is true wrt pre-1900 cities. But so what? Most people moved to pre-modern cities of their own volition. And cities delivered a lot of services: protection from external enemies, a variety of artisanal products, entertainment. It is too one-sided to think of them as either entirely negative, or entirely positive developments during the Great Holocene Transformation. They were both.
Cities were population differentiators. They were a new human technology and a sociobiological organ that produced the new social functions and technologies we call civilisation, such as writing and codes of law.
The agricultural hinterlands produced surpluses that fed and populated them. Cities no more exploit the agricultural and foraging hinterland than the brain exploits the cardiopulmonary system.
Cities were sublime and the temple was an organic outgrowth of the city. As the granaries of Rome it seemed to the citizens like a miracle.
Did anybody raise the notion that they may have flourished on the basis of being population sinks - that population sinks were desirable in some way in a world with such low capital to high quantities of labor and cities existed to channel the surplus safely, as Bataille might argue?
At one point, it is said until the nineteenth century cities were population sinks, where the domestic birthrate was insufficient to maintain/increase population. Yet below it is asserted that cities "extract resources from a hinterland." Well, we all know that extracting most likely a bad thing. But aside from the hint that urban decadence is bad, there is a contradiction between being a population sink and parasitizing on the honest folk of the good clean countryside, no? I can think of ways to reconcile them....but one of the simplest, landlords with a town house, already muddy the picture.
On one hand I feel I should, but given that time is always in short supply, I'll probably never get to it. The field has moved far beyond Mumford; is not very quantitative with models and data analysis.
I get that. I love Mumford, because he's of a very old type - a guy who just showed up and dominated a field, similar to the way Jane Jacobs did with urban planning.
There were a couple of comments referring to cities as population sinks. This is true wrt pre-1900 cities. But so what? Most people moved to pre-modern cities of their own volition. And cities delivered a lot of services: protection from external enemies, a variety of artisanal products, entertainment. It is too one-sided to think of them as either entirely negative, or entirely positive developments during the Great Holocene Transformation. They were both.
Cities were population differentiators. They were a new human technology and a sociobiological organ that produced the new social functions and technologies we call civilisation, such as writing and codes of law.
The agricultural hinterlands produced surpluses that fed and populated them. Cities no more exploit the agricultural and foraging hinterland than the brain exploits the cardiopulmonary system.
Cities were sublime and the temple was an organic outgrowth of the city. As the granaries of Rome it seemed to the citizens like a miracle.
did you record the workshop?
No -- I'll continue by direct email
Did anybody raise the notion that they may have flourished on the basis of being population sinks - that population sinks were desirable in some way in a world with such low capital to high quantities of labor and cities existed to channel the surplus safely, as Bataille might argue?
At one point, it is said until the nineteenth century cities were population sinks, where the domestic birthrate was insufficient to maintain/increase population. Yet below it is asserted that cities "extract resources from a hinterland." Well, we all know that extracting most likely a bad thing. But aside from the hint that urban decadence is bad, there is a contradiction between being a population sink and parasitizing on the honest folk of the good clean countryside, no? I can think of ways to reconcile them....but one of the simplest, landlords with a town house, already muddy the picture.
Steven, I actually disagree. Cities could get resources from hinterland in many ways, some mutually positive (trading).
Inoue, Hiroko, Alexis Álvarez, Eugene N. Anderson, Andrew Owen, Rebecca Álvarez, Kirk Lawrence and Christopher Chase-Dunn 2015
“Urban scale shifts since the Bronze Age: upsweeps, collapses and semiperipheral development” Social Science History Volume 39 number 2, Summer
We actually talked about upsweeps in discussions! Chris, you would really enjoy this workshop.
Peter, have you read "The City in History" by Lewis Mumford? He basically created this field of study.
On one hand I feel I should, but given that time is always in short supply, I'll probably never get to it. The field has moved far beyond Mumford; is not very quantitative with models and data analysis.
I get that. I love Mumford, because he's of a very old type - a guy who just showed up and dominated a field, similar to the way Jane Jacobs did with urban planning.
Sounds very interesting, but what about the evolutionary perspective - surely cities evolved [e.g., see https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06203]?
Yes.