The origin of cities is a highly decorated and argued debate. Many theories exist within our society in regard to the origins of cities. These theories act as a focal point and are essential to our understanding of the city and towards urbanization generally. Essentially there are three main theories from human geographers which enhance and influence our idea of the origin of cities. These theories come from Jane Jacobs, Gordon Childe and Lewis Mumford. Jane Jacobs proposed that urban development pre – dated agriculture in her notion of “Cities first” in her book “The Economy of Cities” (Jacobs, 1969). Gordon Childe suggested that the agricultural way of life led to the development of urban societies (Childe, 1950), while Lewis Mumford proclaimed that leaders emerge from parallel co-existing hunting-gathering tribes (Mumford, 1961). All three are well respected theories and all stand up to various pieces of criticism in their own right. Through an in depth and close examination of all three one can hope to gain an informed insight into all three in their respective ways. Careful analysis of each theory can also lead one describe the origin of cities and understand how they contribute to our understanding of the city and urbanization more generally.
In the first chapter of her book, Jane Jacobs proclaimed that cities pre – dated farming. However she fails to detail any relevant archaeological literature of this. (Smith, Ur, Feinman, 2014). Jacobs notion of “Cities first” was developed through a fictional pre – agricultural city which she gave the name of New Obsidian. Jacobs goes onto discuss the then recent excavations of James Mellaart in Catalhoyuk, she claims that “Catal Hoyuk is both the earliest city yet found, and the earliest known settlement of any kind to possess agriculture” (Jacobs, 1969). Jacobs firmly believed that if she had the ability to change what she believed was a misconception about the city and prove that cities preceded agriculture historically then this would add value and greater substance to her model of the primacy of economic production in urban growth. (Smith, Ur, Feinman, 2014). However the only real evidence that Jacobs described for her Catalhoyuk was in fact not supported at all. “Had she consulted the basic textbooks in world prehistory of the 1960s (Braidwood, 1961, Piggott, 1961), she would have found that what she called the “dogma” of agricultural primacy was instead an empirically supported archaeological model”. (Smith, Ur, Feinman. 2014. “Jane Jacobs’ ‘Cities First’ Model and Archaeological Reality). Hence it is very hard to take any real substance from this proposal as the archaeological evidence is not strong enough to support the theory in full. One must however have a broad mindset when analysing how this proposal of Jacobs contributes to our understanding of the city and urbanization more generally. It is clear to be seen through her theory that as cities develop that agriculture can grow and prosper in the aftermath. This is relatable to the world that we live in today and what we view as the modern city and our understanding of it. Examples of agriculture prospering as a result of a core foundation of a city and sound urban development can be seen as regions such as the Paris Basin continue to develop and prosper as an agricultural hotbed due to a well developed city that preceded much of the agricultural development. Therefore this all acts to enhance and aid the idea of Jacob’s “Cities First” theory contributing to our understanding of the city. However one must note that Jacob’s theory has had to stand up to extreme scrutiny from historians, urbanists and anthropologists. This is where extreme debate is raised in regard to her theory and many have offered persuasive arguments as to why the disagree to the notion of her “Cities First” proposal however while also acknowledging it’s merits. For example Soja had closely examined the notion and came to the conclusion that it did not stand up (Smith, Ur, Feinman, 2014) however gave credit at the same time as he said:
“While all of her claims probably cannot withstand the most rigorous evidential criteria of the ancient historians and archaeologists, the core argument is sufficiently powerful and insightful to deserve serious attention here, especially for its demonstration of the geohistorical as well as contemporary significance of putting cities first” (Soja, E.W., 2000, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions).
In conclusion there is certain evidence such as that in Catalhoyuk which Jacobs provides us with to at least give a certain amount of thought to her notion. It is also easy to cite Mesopotamia as an example where the vast urbanization and fast developing agriculture occurred simultaneously with one another. However the findings of archaeologists often deprive the “Cities First” notion of the respect that it deserves. It provided and interesting and well founded platform to our understanding of the city in a broad aspect and toward urbanization more generally. It truly is a critical part and component in relation to the debate of the origin of cities.
While analysing a debate such as the Origin of the city and how this leads us to a more global and greater understanding of the city today it is of the utmost importance and can be seen as critical to analyse and study many theories and observations of the city to gain an informed understanding of it. As such another notion put forward in relation to the Origin of the City can be seen from Lewis Mumford (1895 – 1990). Mumford puts forward a strong argument in his book “The City in History” where he portrays his idea of the ideal “organic city” where he claims the three most important reasons for cities existing are animal needs, the dominance of women in neolithic culture and the development of the role of the paleolithic hunter (Mumford, 1961). The observations that he makes in relation to both animals and humans settling in similar manners and requiring the same needs is striking. He tends to compare humans settlement patterns to those such as birds and insects. He argues that we thrive for protection in the form of shelter and food which is animalistic in a way that can be seen through hunter gatherers and their eventual settlement when the agricultural revolution occurred. The views of Mumford as a historian are more universal, less localistic; moreover, in studying the city, he studies not only its artifacts and layout, but its moral and religious qualities, this is in stark contrast to some historians and geographers who base their writings solely on space and time. (David Riesman, Some Observations on Lewis Mumford’s “The City in History”, 1961).
Mumford notes that the importance of women in the development of the city cannot be undermined and is in his opinion was a very large contributing factor and in particularly women in neolithic culture. The evidence of women’s inventions in the neolithic period and culture become essential to the agricultural revolution which hence leads to the development of the first cities. He describes “the first containers, weaving baskets and coiling clay pots” as being essential to the agricultural revolution. (Mumford, “The City in History”, 1961). This is a fascinating proposal as it immediately questions our instincts as to question where women lie in the city at this moment in time. Is it the essential resources and inventions that they made which originally allowed people to settle and develop these large settlements which were functional in close proximity following on from the agricultural revolution. Mumford suggests that the women’s inventions of the permanent containers led to further inventions to the extent of reservoirs, irrigation systems and canals which all tend to form a crucial aspect of our city today. (Mumford, “The City in History”, 1961). Another suggestion from Mumford that precedes his suggestions of women, hunter gatherers and the agricultural revolution leading to the first cities is his theory in which he suggests that the dead were in fact the first people to become involved in permanent settlement which is an intelligent insight in my opinion. He explains how the caverns and mounds where paleolithic communities buries their dead were the first settlement of their kind. People and relatives of the deceased then returned to visit the dead and took example from these settlements. (Mumford, “The City in History”, 1961).
Overall the debate that Mumford puts forward when describing the Origins of the City is very convincing. One must acknowledge the relevance of his writings to the city in today’s world and how it has developed and urbanized over time. The role of women can be seen as crucial in the origin of the city as it is in the city of today. The link to an animalistic way of settlement is very relatable to and helps to describe the link between animal and human settlement. The explanation Mumford provides of the influence the agricultural revolution had on the development of the city is very telling. It becomes clear the reliance that agriculture and population have on one another and in particular dense population that can be seen in the cities of then and the cities of now, agricultural hubs such as the Paris Basin have been mentioned and also acts as an ideal representation of this theory. The large urban area of Paris has developed and become more urbanized in recent times due to further agricultural developments such as the original revolution. Therefore the description of Mumford and his thoughts on the Origin of the city from his writings in “The City in History” prove to have a large contribution to our understanding of the city and urbanization more generally.
The last main theory regarding the origin of the city comes from Gordon Childe (1882 – 1957) and his theory of the Neolithic Revolution followed by the Urban Revolution. “Childe was the first to synthesise archaeological data with respect to the concept of urbanism, and the first to recognise the radical social transformation that came with the earliest cities and states.” (Michael E. Smith, Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: a historical perspective on a revolution in urban studies, 2009). What Childe’s concept really does is to act as a description force as to how agricultural societies changed into more modern urban societies. When dealing with Childe and his concept of the origins of cities and the transformations they underwent, it is important to understand his use of the term “Revolution”. He uses this term to describe the movement and shift in trends and ways of living throughout his work as is seen in what he describes as the “Neolithic Revolution” and the “Urban Revolution”. (Smith, 2009). To Childe these periods of revolution were “real revolutions that affected all departments of human life” (Childe, 1935).
The Neolithic Revolution that Childe describes to us outlines the transfer from a hunter gathering way of life towards a farming lifestyle. As a result of resources being available in greater amounts and more reliably in one place, villages and settlements grew as a result of that. This was a huge moment in the development and origin of the city as the agricultural was of life now spread across the globe according to Childe. (Smith, 2009). The Urban Revolution that Childe explains is more to do with a wide change of mindset in society as KIngs with real power began to emerge this then led to governments following this process and social stratification being seen for the first time in the city. (Smith, 2009). So Childe’s underlying opinion of what went on throughout the Neolithic and Urban Revolution is very clear for all to see in regard to his opinion of the origin of the city. The progression in society from a hunter gathering way of life towards farming and intensive agriculture made a huge change in people’s lives and in society as a whole with increased settlement in higher density due to the productivity of farms. While the Urban revolution coupled changes with the way society worked and the way people behaved in society, systems such as taxes and courts were introduced which led to a use for the city and ultimately helped the development of the origin of the city.
In an overview of how Childe’s theories help us to understand the city and urbanization one must note the fundamental simplicity of what he is saying. It is almost instinct for us to know that people began to locate in a more densely populated fashion with the development of farming and agriculture while the social changes that he describes to us are still very clear to be seen and may be termed the backbone of our society in the city today. Childe’s theory stands up to scrutiny historically and gives a detailed contribution to our understanding of the city and urbanization today.
In review, Jacobs, Mumford and Childe all give a detailed and well thought analysis of their view on the Origin of the city. From the notion of Jacobs that cities preceded agriculture to those of Mumford and Childe, one can gain an informed and intelligent insight into the origin of the city from an in depth analysis of all three. It is clear that each have their own merits and can stand up in the face of criticism and scrutiny through archaeological evidence they have all provided. The debate on the origin of the city is constant and perhaps none of the three theories proposed are correct in their own right. Moreover it is a combination of all three and what we take from the three as individual and a collective study that can really tell us about the origin of the city and how it can contribute to our understanding of the city and urbanization in today’s world.