Post‐Childe, Post‐Wirth: Response to Smith, Ur and Feinman

Abstract

Abstract This is a reply to a critique of Jane Jacobs' ‘cities first' thesis with respect to agricultural origins. The critique's basic premise is that the archaeological record regarding the development of agriculture precedes the earliest cities and therefore the thesis is empirically refuted. Accepting this archaeological record for agriculture, the dispute centres on the archaeological record for city origins. Substituting a process definition of cities—city‐ness—for a ‘thing' definition (e.g. monumentality), this reply opens up pre‐Mesopotamian possibilities for city networks while conceding the difficulty in empirically obtaining evidence in earlier periods. Thus Jacobs' thesis cannot be absolutely refuted, and an exciting agenda for urban research emerges for archaeologists and social scientists.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.