ABSTRACT
This volume has discussed a large number of cities over a vast time-span and scattered over much of the world. Taken together, they exhibit enormous diversity. But is it possible to discern some underlying features that all of these cities have in common – some essence of urbanism? A bold assertion that this was indeed the case attracted attention when it was developed in a book written by a US academic and published in 1960. According to Gideon Sjoberg, a sociologist, all cities before the onset of industrialization were (and in some cases still are) of the same type. He therefore sees nothing of importance distinguishing ancient Babylon, Nineveh, Rome, medieval Florence, Early Modern Paris, Guangzhou of the early twentieth century, present-day Kathmandu and Timbuktu. Their ‘structure, or form’ – spatial, political, social and economic – is everywhere the same. In all pre-industrial cities – whether in Europe, Africa, India or China – the city centre is the hub of government and religion, and the residence of the elite. Manual labour is despised. Craft production is achieved through a simple division of labour. The underlying reason for these and all other common characteristics is, he argues, the undeveloped state of technology. Unlike the industrial city whose technology is based on the inanimate energy of steam or electricity, on advanced tools and ‘know-how’, the pre-industrial city is throughout fashioned by dependence on animal or human power and simple tools, and by lack of technical knowledge. Why did the craft specialists in pre-industrial cities of the past (and in those of the present) concentrate in particular streets or districts? Because of rudimentary technology: primitive transport and the dependence of illiterate craft specialists on oral communication forced them to group together (Sjoberg, 1960).
