In: Eurasia at the Dawn of History: Urbnaization & Social Change.Manual Fernández-Götz & Dirk Krausse, eds. 2016, Cambridge Univ. Press

154 MICHAEL E. SMITH

broader realm of society and the state. Urbanism also exhibits much variation

in its scale and properties. The size, form, and function of cities vary within

individual past urban traditions, as well as among different traditions. I argue

that a methodological and conceptual approach based on urban attrjbutes is a

productive avenue for analyzing early cities.

Approach 1: City Definitions

G. Cowgill (2004: 526) has written, "It is notoriously difficult to agree on a

cross-culturally applicable definition of 'the' city, but we cannot do without·

definitions altogether .... No single criterion, such as sheer size or use of writ­

ing, is adequate". The urban literature in many fields reveals two dominant

approaches to city definition: the demographic/sociological approach and the

functional approach. By far the most influential definition of urbanism is the

demographic or sociological definition offered by sociologist L. Wirth (1938: 8): "For sociological purposes a city may be defined as a relatively large, dense, and

permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals". This definition

fits contemporary cities, and it is favored by many or most scholars of urban­

ism today. By the mid-20th century, however, it became clear to archaeologists

that the sociological definition excluded most ancient cities from considera­

tion as urban settlements. Many early urban settlements were prominent and

influential within their settings, yet their levels of population size, density, and

heterogeneity were considerably lower than contemporary Western cities.

When faced with these anomalous settlements, some scholars held onto

Wirth's definition and declared that most non-Western and premodem states

were non-urban societies.Archaeologists W. Sanders and B. Price (1968: 46), for

example, classified the two largest and most complex ancient Mesoamerican

settlements as urban (Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan) but placed the capitals

of the Classic Maya and other Mesoamerican societies into the categor y of

non-urban settlements.

Others adopted a new definition of cities based on their social impact. This

"functional" approach to definition originated in the field of economic geog­

raphy. The definition of archaeologist B. Trigger (1972: 577) is typical of this

approach: "It is generally agreed that whatever else a city may be it is a unit of

settlement which performs specialized functions in relationship to a broad hin­

terland". An urban function is an activity or institution that directly affects life and society in a hinterland. The initial functional definition of cities-focused

on retail economic functions, and central place theory provided concepts and

methods for understanding cities as economic central places (Christaller 1966).

Anthropologists then moved beyond economic functions to define cities using

other regional impacts such as political administration or religion (Fox 1977;

Marcus 1983). The functional definition of urbanism emphasizes variation in

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CJTIES;o

Functional

definition

Sociological

definition

10. l. The rc:lationship between the functional and sociological definitiom of urbanism.All "soci­ological" cities also fit the functional defini tion, whereas the converse is not true (author).

urban forms and processes around the world and through time. There were

alternative forms of urbanism before the modern era, both within and between

urban traditions, and these settings are difficult to analyze with the sociological

definition of urbanism.

The relationship between the sociological and funccional definitions of

urbanism is illustrated in Figure 1o.1. Any city that is sufficiently large and het­

erogeneous to satisfy Wirth's demographic/sociological definition of urbanism

has urban functions and thus also sacisfies the functional definition. In modern

cities these functions are usually economic in nature, although political cap­

itals have important administrative functions, and some cities exert religious

or cultural impacts on their hinterlands. But the converse is not true; many

functionally urban settlements are too small or too homogeneous socially to

fit Wirth's definicion.

The Classic Maya cities of Mesoamerica are a good example of cities that

fit the functional but not the sociological definition of urban.ism. Large palaces

(Figure ro.2) were inhabited by kings whose rule extended far into the hin­

terland. Political power was reinforced by theatrical state ceremonies carried

out at towering temple-pyramids. Because these ceremonies pertained to the

entire city-state, not just the urban area, they were urban functions. The admin­

istrative and religious functions signaled by urban palaces and temples affected

hinterland society and satisfy the functional definition as stated by Trigger, Fox,

and Marcus. Yet the population size and density of most Maya capitals were

r55

156 MICHAELE. SMITH

ro.2. Royal palace at the Classic Maya city of Palenque. The two primary urban functions of Maya cities were royal administration (as signaled by palaces) and state religion (as signaled by large temples) (author).

far below those of most cities today. Archaeologists promoting the sociologi­

cal and functional definitions have accordingly debated the urban status of the

Maya centers (Chase et al. 1990; Sanders/Webster 1988).

In addition to difficulties with operationalizing the definitions - how many

people or how prominent must an urban function be - there are a number of

problems with both the demographic/sociological and the functional defini­

tions. The demographic definition applies very nicely to contemporary cities,

but defining the nature of modern cities is rarely an important scientific issue.

Instead, scholars discuss how to identify useful urban analytical units on the

ground: Should economists analyze a city, as marked by formal administrative

boundaries, or a metropolitan statistical area, a larger unit based on labor flows?

In summary, the sociological definition of urbanism is a good description

of contemporary Western cities, but it is not very helpfol in analyzing them.

For archaeologim, it has the disadvantage of eliminating most of the historical

record of premodern cities and towns. However, it does have the advantage of

singling out the largest and most complex ancient cities. The functional defini­

tion, in contrast, contributes greatly to tl1e definition and analysis of premodern

cities but is less useful for modern cities.

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES'

Approach 2: Urban Typologies

Two kinds of typologies are found in the urban literature: I label them "com­prehensive" and "targeted" typologies . Comprehensive urban typologies are designed to be systematic and wide ranging so that they can encompass most or all cities, whereas targeted typologies are designed to illuminate research on a particular theme and are thus more limited in scope. Typologies can also be characterized as unidimensional (a list of nominal categories) and two­dimensional {types are the cells in a two-dimensional cross-classification table).

An influential functional urban typology is R. Fox's two-dimensional com­prehensive typology (Figure 10.3A). His six types of cities provide a broad perspective on urban centers, although his specification of a dominant social or cultural role for each quadrant (e.g., "ideological role") reduces the value

State Power:

A Segmentary Bureaucratic ....., c Ideological role: Administrative role: <lJ

> "'C

- Regal-ritual cities - Administrative cities c E <lJ

c. - Colonial cities 0 <lJ c c 0 u V) w :::::s c 0 Mercantile role: Industrial role: tO E ..0 .... 0 - Mercantile cities - Industrial cities :::> c

0 - City-states .....,

:::::s <

B Accumulation:

Low High

c ..c: Primate cities Megalopolous 0 ll.O

+:i :c co

Urban .... ....., QJ

hierarchy c QJ <.J c � 0 u 0 None Scattered centers ....

10.3. Two-dimensional city typologies. (A) comprehensive typology; (B) targeted typology for European cities after AD 1000 (author, based on data in Fox 1977 and Tilly 199.!).

157

158 MICHAEL E. SMITH

of this scheme. Some authors describe societal categories and assign a single urban type to each category. A. Southall (1998), for example, presents a Marxist typology of societies - Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal, and Capitalist - and asserts that each one had only one characteristic type of city.

Sociologist C. Tilly's bidimensional typology of European cities after AD 1000 is a good example of a targeted (two-dimensional) typology (Figure rn.3, B). Tilly's (1992) purpose is to illuminate the relationship between political coercion and capital accumulation in the evolution of historical European cities and states, and his cross-classification of the concentration and accumu­lation of capital serves this end well. Typologies do not explain urbanism nor provide clear guidance on how to identify or describe cities in the distant past, but they can help scholars focus on key issues by narrowing the range of their analyses. In this chapter I combine some of the work on urban defini­

tions and typologies to identify two ideal-types - economic cities and political cities - that help illuminate the major differences between ancient and modern cities.

Approach 3: Archaeological Urban Attributes

Because the use of definitions and typologies to study early cities can seri­ously limit the flexibility of one's analysis, I propose here an alternative method based on a series of"archaeological urban attributes."Whereas definitions and typologies are based on monothetic procedures - categories are clearly defined

in advance, resulting in unequivocal membership of groups - the attribute approach is polythetic in nature (Dunnell 1986) . That is, settlements are eval­uated on a series of attributes, but "urban" settlements can have varying com­binations of those attributes. I selected the traits, or attributes, on the basis of two requirements. First, each attribute is important in one of more theoret­ical approaches to urbanism. Many of them are parts of the demographic or functional definitions of urbanism discussed earlier. Second, these traits can be documented and studied with archaeological data. This approach is less pre­cise and clear-cut than the monothetic methods of definitions and typologies, but it is a more realistic way of addressing the inherent complexity of ancient urbanism. I follow Cowgill's (.zoo4) suggestion that "no single criterion, such as sheer size or use of writing, is adequate [to define cities], and it seems best to use a somewhat fuzzy core concept rather than to try to establish crite­ria that will clearly demarcate all cities from all noncities". I propose that this attribute-based approach is more flexible than works that use a definition-based approach. When archaeologists try to rely on precise definitions for the earliest urban settlements, the result is a proliferation of awkward terms like "proto­urban centers", "incompletely urbanized sites", or "atelo-urban" settlements (see Brun/Chaume 2013).

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES7

THE LIST OF A T TRIBUTES

Table 10. r lists twenty-one archaeological urban attributes, which can be eval­uated for one or more archaeological sites to get an idea of both the level of urban development and the nature of urban processes. Instead of applying a

rigid (monothetic) definition or typology to a site, this approach is a more flex­

ible way to examine the expression of urbanism in the archaeological record.

This list is provisional, and it may need modification as it is applied to different ancient cities and urban traditions.

In this approach the relation-;hip between the urban traits and the status of "urban" or "city" is not fixed or rigid. As in any polythetic scheme, there are

TABLE ro. r. Archaeological urban attributes

Attributes

Settlement Size population area density

Social Impact (urban functions) royal palace royal or high aristocratic burials large (high-order) temples civic architecture craft production mark.et or shops

Built Environment fortifications gates connective infrastructure intermediate-order temples residences, lower elite formal public space planning of epicenter

Social & Economic Features burials, lower elite social diversity (nonclass) neighborhoods agriculture within settlement imports

Notes: Type of variable

Type of Variable

M M M

PIA PIA PIA s s s

PIA PIA PIA PIA PIA PIA PIA

PIA PIA PIA PIA s

M: quantitative measurement; PI A: presence/absence S: measurement scale (t: low; 2: moderate; 3: high)

Sources: Flannery 1998 Renfrew 2008: 47-48 Weber 1958; 81

Inclusion in Other Lists

Renfrew; Flannery Renfrew; Flannery Renfrew; Flannery

Renfrew Weber

Renfrew; Weber

Renfrew Renfrew

Renfrew

159

160 MICHAEL E. SMITH

no "necessary" traits that must be present in every case of urbanism, and there is no absolute quantitative criterion for urbanism (e.g., any site with twelve of

the traits can be called a city). The purpose of this scheme is to explore the pat­

tern of urban-related attributes at a site or a series of sites, and it works best in a

comparative framework. It is similar to the way B. Nelson (1995) analyzed social

complexity at sites in the New World. He suggests that "an appropriate ques­tion to ask about the two polities at hand is not only 'How complex were they?'

but also 'How were they complex?"' (Nelson 1995: 599). In the realm of cities, instead of asking whether a site was a city, we will learn more by asking which

attributes of urbanism were present at what level or concentration at a site. Settlement Size. The first group of attributes describes the size of settlements,

in population and area. These are measurements or calculations that conform

to a ratio scale of measurement.

Sodal Impact. My second group of attributes consists of features that usually

signal the existence of urban functions or a settlement's social impact on its hinterland. A royal palace or burials of kings or high-ranking ari4itocrats signal

political domination of a hinterland, and large central temples usually signal

a religious impact beyond the confines of the settlement. These are three of

the most widespread indicators of early urban settlements; they are part of C.

Renfrew's (2008) list of eight early urban features and ofK. Flannery's (1998) traits that identify archaic states in the archaeological record.

Civic architecture, craft production, and markets or shops are all measured on ordinal scales here. High values suggest an impact on a hinterland, whereas low

values suggest that these activities served only the residents of the settlement

and not a larger hinterland. Craft production is one of Renfrew's urban traits, and it is also a trait used by M. Weber (1958: 8 1) to identify cities.

Built Environment. The third group of archaeological urban attributes

includes features of the built environment. These attributes can often (but not

always) be determined from mapping and surface archaeology without exca­vation. Fortifications and gates illustrate the variation among early urban tra­

ditions around the world. Both Renfrew and Weber include the fortification

wall in the lists of urban features, which can illustrate the variation in urban

attributes around the world. In Mesoamerica, very few cities were fortified, and none of the Aztec cities had a perimeter wall with gates; these attributes are sim­

ply not relevant to Aztec urbanism. But research on the possible urban status of the Heuneburg or other Early Iron Age settlements (Fernandez-Getz/Krausse 2012, 2013) has found that walls and gates are relevant and important urban

attributes, in part because later urban settlements in the same tradition - the oppida- typically had walls and gates (Ade et al. 2012; Fichtl 2005).

The attribute "connective infrastructure" includes roads, canals, and paths.

Intermediate-order temples are smaller than large, high-order temples; are usu­

ally more abundant and more widely distributed within a city, often at the

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES:>

level of a neighborhood; and serve fewer residents than the large central tem­ples. Residences of lower-ranking elite households, formal public space, and the presence of clear principles of urban planning (Smith 2007) are other eas­ily measurable attributes conunonly found in urban settlements. In addition to formal public spaces, Renfrew includes "axial principles" in his list of urban features. Instead, I include a more generalized (and far more widespread) fea­ture: planning of the urban epicenter.

Soda/ & Ecottomic Feat11res. My fourth group of urban attributes includes social and economic features that commonly must be inferred from excava­tions or interpretations of spatial data. Burials of lower-ranking elites are an

obvious urban attribute, although these finds are problematic at Aztec settle­ments (see the later discussion). Nonclass social diversity refers to evidence of ethnic, religious, or occupational variation among urban residents. Neighbor­hoods are probably a universal urban characteristic (Smith 2010), although they are not always easy to identify archaeologically. T he neighborhood is the only social feature that Renfrew includes in his list of urban features. Agricultural cultivation within the settlement is a common feature in some urban traditions. Imports are probably present at all or nearly all sites in complex societies, so this attribute is measured on an ordinal scale; larger numbers of imports suggests a more urban-like setting.

AN AZTEC EXAMPLE

An example from my own research at Aztec sites in central Mexico illustrates the archaeological urban attri�utes (Table 10.2). Four sites are included: Capilco (a village), Cuexcomate (a town}, Yautepec (a city}, and Tenochtitlan (the impe­rial capital). Information about Capilco, Cuexcomate, and Yautepec is from my own excavations (Smith 1992, 2008}, and information about the Aztec impe­rial capital Tenochtitlan is from a variety of sources (Calnek 2003; Rojas .:!.012). T he number and level of archaeological urban attributes at these sites are good predictors of the urban level of these sites as understood informally by archae­ologists. It is not at all surprising that Tenochtitlan has more urban traits and higher levels of urban traits than the other sites. Everyone agrees that Tenochti­tlan was a city: It was the largest city in the Precolumbian New World and one of the largest cities in the world in AD 1500.

Yautepec was a capital of an altepetl, the most common form of Aztec polity; it corresponds to the city-state (Hansen 2000; Smith 2008). Although some archaeologists following the sociological/ demographic definition of urbanism have claimed that Tenochtitlan was the only true city during the Aztec period (Sanders/Price 1968), most archaeologists would accept the urban status of Yautepec and other similar city-state capitals. Capilco was a small village with few urban traits, and Cuexcomate occupied an intermediate position between

161

162 MICHAEL E. SMITH

TABLE 10.2. Arcl1aeological Urban Attributes at Aztec Sites

Yautepec Tenochtitlan Type of Capilco Cuexcomate (city-state (imperial

Attribute Variable* (village) (town) capital) capital)

Settlement Size population M IOO 800 13.000 210.000 area (ha) M I I,S 210 1.350 density (persons I ha) M 100 so 60 155

Social Impact (urban functions)

royal palace PIA x x royal or high aristocratic PIA ? x

burials large (high-order) temples PIA x x civic architecture s I 2 3 craft production s I I 2 3 market or shops s ? 2 3

Built Environment fortifications PIA gates PIA connective infrastructure PIA ? x inter111ediate-order PIA x x x

temples residences, lower elite P/A x x x for111al public space PIA x x x planning of epicenter PIA x x x

Social & Economic Features

burials, lower elite PIA ? ? social diversity (nonclass) PIA ? x neighborhoods PIA x x x agriculture within PIA x x x

settlement imports s 2 2 3

• See Table 10.1 for key.

Capilco and Yautepec in both size and the number and intensity of its urban

traits. Cuexcomate did have a few low-level urban functions, but on a much

lower scale than the city-state capitals; for this reason I label it a "town." By

considering a wide range of urban attributes in a comparative fashion, we learn

about the nature of urbanism in Aztec society.

APPLICATION TO THE HEUNEBURG

In Table ro.3 I apply the list of archaeological urban attributes to the Heune­

burg (Arnold 2orn; Fernandez-Gatz/Krausse 2012, 2013) and Manching (Fichtl

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES:>

TABLE 10.3. Archaeological Urban Attributes, Hcu11ebflJR and Mane/ting

Type of Attribute Variable* Heuneburg Manching

Settlement Size population M 5.000 5,000-10,000 area (ha) M JOO 380 density M so 13-26

Social Impact (urban functions) royal palace PIA royal or high aristocratic burials PIA x large (high-order) temples PIA x civic architecture s craft production s 2 3 market or shops s ? ?

Built Environment fortifications PIA x x gates PIA x x connective infrastructure PIA x x intermediate-order temples PIA x residences, lower elite PIA x x formal public space PIA x planning of epicenter PIA x x

Social 8c Economic Features burials, lower elite P/A x x social diversity (nonclass) P/A x x neighborhoods PIA x x agriculture within settlement PIA x x imports s 2 . 2

* See Table 10.1 for the key.

2005; Sievers 2002, 2007). These data have several implications for understand­

ing the presence or nature of urbanism in the Early Iron Age. First, it is diffi­cult to interpret the urban status of a single settlement in isolation. Cities and

urbanism differ around the world, and the most logical comparisons for any

site are to other sites in the same urban tradition or the same area. Considered

in isolation, the lack of evidence for a royal palace or very large temples might suggest that Heuneburg was not an urban settlement because these are two of the most common attributes of early cities around the world (Flannery 1998; Renfrew 2008). This seems to be the view ofBrun/Chaume (2013), who use

the term "incompletely urbanised sites" for Heuneburg, Vix, and other con­

temporary sites. But from a comparative perspective, this does not seem like a useful approach.

A second implication is that basic patterns of urbanism were widespread

in Iron Age Europe. Some of the traits lacking at Heuneburg - such as a royal palace - are also lacking at oppida sites. This suggests that these traits simply may

163

164 MICHAELE. SMITH

not be highly relevant for urban status in Iron Age Europe. Most archaeologists

now accept the oppida as urban settlements (Fernandez-Getz 2014; Ficht! 2005;

Wells 2ou ). The oppida manifest a distinctive kind of urbanism, and Heune­

burg's similarities with later oppida such as Manching argues i11 favor of its urban

status. The various traits found at both kinds of sites - such as fortification

walls and gates - indicate that patterns of urbanism in Iron Age Europe were

widespread in both space and time.

A third implication of the data in T:1bles 10.2 and IO.J is that variation in early

urban traditions around the world can be quite high, as indicated by the fact

that the archaeological urban traits of Iron Age sites differ greatly from those

of the Aztec sites. As noted by Cowgill (2004), this variation is one reason why

definitions are difficult to apply to premodern cities and is one of the strongest

arguments in favor of a polythetic, attribute-based approach as advocated here.

ECONOMIC CITIES AND POLITICAL CITIES

If we step back from the complexity of individual cases, the world's cities can

be divided into a small number of functional types. Figure ro.4 illustrates one

Economics

Economic

cities

Religion

Political

cities

Politics 10.4. Simplified urban typology based on social impact {urban functions) (author).

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES7

such typological scheme in relation to the major urban functions: economics, politics, and religion. The category "economic cities" describes nearly every

contemporary city and some past cities. In this type of city, economic activity

has a stronger influence on urban growth than does political or religious activity.

These are cities in which economic growth feeds on itself in what economists

call agglomeration economies (Glaeser 2011; Storper 2010). In Figure 10.4, economic cities are contrasted with two types for which

economic activity is of lesser importance in generating growth. "Regal-ritual

cities" (l::igure 10 . 3A) is R. Fox's (1977) category for cities dominated by petty kings who controlled only a limited resource base and used elaborate theatri­cal ceremonies to legitimize and extend their power over weakly centralized

polities. The term "theater state" has also been applied to these polities (Geertz

1980), and Geertz goes so far as to argue that the theatricality was the actual

basis of power rather than just a legitimizing process. Most scholars, however,

reverse the direction of Geertz's causality (Kurtz· 2001: 63-64; Trigger 2003:

250). Classic Maya cities (Figure 10.2) are a good example of Fox's regal-ritual

city type. The term "capital cities" describes capitals of polities in the premod­

ern world and today that have lower levels of public ritual than regal-ritual

cities and a lower level of economic activity than economic cities. It may be

difficult to distinguish between these two types, and for the purpose of mak­ing a contrast with economic cities they can be combined into a type called

"political cities."

The purpose of this limited (yet comprehensive) typology of cities is to

highlight important distinctions between modern cities (most of which are

economic cities) and premodern cities (most of which were political cities). In most parts of the world, including Mesoamerica, the Andes, China, Egypt,

and sub-Saharan Africa, the very earliest indigenous cities were political cities

whose economic role was quite limited (Trigger 2003). Later manifestations of

urbanism in some of these areas showed more pronounced economic functions. For example, in Mesoamerica the earliest cities (in the Preclassic period, 1500

BC-AD 200) had very low levels of economic activity; then the Classic Maya

cities had somewhat greater economic activity (Masson/Freidel 2002) ; and the

even later Aztec and Maya cites of the Postclassic period had more heavily

commercialized economies (Smith/Berdan 2003) .

Mesopotamia was the only region whose earliest indigenous cities may have had a significant economic component (Algaze 2008; Hudson/Levine, 1999). I explore the distinction between economic and political cities at greater length

elsewhere (Smith and Lobo 2013) . For present purposes, my goal is to empha-

. size the close connection between political processes and urbanization in early complex societies. Although economic processes were important in most early

cities, the actions of rulers and elites had a much stronger influence on cities

and urbanism.

166 MICHAEL!;. SMITH

CONCLUSIONS

There is no single best definition of urbanism nor any single best approach

for analyzing early cities and urban societies. In this chapter I argue that a reliance on definitions of urbanism is not the best way to identify and

understand the earliest cities. Definitions lack :flexibility, and there is no clear

way to choose between the two dominant definitions (functional and demo­

graphic/ sociological) or the many other definitions found in the literature.

Instead, I argue for the usefulness of an attribute-based approach to early cities. I present a provisional list of twenty-one archaeological urban attributes whose

presence or level can be investigated for individual archaeological sites. How­

ever, these attributes neither lead to a clear definition of the city nor to an obvi­

ous identification of which sites were urban and which were not. What they do allow is a comparative analysis of the nature and scale of urbanism, an analysis

. that is both broadly comparative and sensitive to specific regional and tempo­

ral contexts. Modern urbanism is fundamentally an economic phenomenon,

whereas most premodern cities were political capitals in which political activ­

ity played a larger role than economic activity in urban growth.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Manuel Fernandez-Gatz for inviting me to the conference "Indi­

vidualization, Urbanization and Social Differentiation: Intellectual and Cul­

tural Streams in Eurasia (800-400 BC)" in Stuttgart, and for a guided tour of

Heuneburg and Heidengraben. I relied heavily on Manuel's knowledge and

advice for completing Table 10.3. B. Stark provided helpful comments on an

earlier draft of this chapter.

REFERENCES

Ade, DJM. Fernandez-Gotz/L. Rademacher/G. Stegmaier/ A. Willmy (2012):Der Heidengmbm: Bin keltisches Oppitlum auf der Scliwiibeu Alb. Konrad T heiss Verlag, Stuttgart.

Algaze, G. (2008): Aticimt Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: Tiie Evolution of an Urban LA11dscape. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago. Arnold, B. (2010): Eventful archaeology, the

Heuneburg mud-brick wall and the Early Iron Age of Southwest Gem1any. In D. Bolender (ed.), Evenifitl Archaeologies: New Approacl1es to Sodal Tra11sformatio11 in tlie Archaeological Record. SUNY Press, Albany, 100-n4.

Brun, J>JB. Chaume (2013 ): Une ephemere tentative d'urbanisation en Europe centre­occidentale durant les vie et ve siecles av. J.C.? Bulletin de la Societe preliistorique franfQise no, 3 19-3 49·

Calnek, E. E. (2003 ): Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco: T he natural history of a city I Tenochtitlan­Tlatelolco: La Historia Natural de una Ciudad. In W. T. Sanders/ A. G. Mas­tache/R. H. Cobean (eds.), El urbanismo en mesoamerica/Urbat1ism in Mesoamerica. Pennsyl­vania State University and Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, University Park

and Mexico City, 14g-202.

HOW CAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS IDENTIFY EARLY CITIES7

Chase, D. ZJ A. F. Chase/W. A. Haviland (1990):

The Classic Maya city : Reconsidering the "Mesoamerican urban tradition." America11 A11thropologist 92, 49g-5o6.

Christaller, W. (1966): Central Places in Soutl1en1 Genna11y. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Cowgill, G. L. (2004): Origins and develop­ment of urbanism: Archaeological approaches. AHlmal Revieu1 of Anthropology 33, 525-

549.

Dunnell, R. C. (1986): Methodological issues in Americanist artifact classification. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9, 14g-207.

Fernandez-Gotz, M. (2014): Reassessing the opp­ida: The role of power and religion. Oxford

]01m1al of Arclraeology 33 (4), 379-394·

Fernandez-Gotz, MJD. Krausse (2012): Heune­burg: First city north of the Alps. C11rre11t World Arclracology 5, 28-34.

Fernandez-Getz, MJD. Krausse (2013):

Rethinking Early Iron Age urbanisation

in. Central Europe: The Heuneburg site and its archaeological environment. Antiquity 87,

473-487.

Fichtl, S. (2005): LA ville celtique: Les oppida de 150

ava11t J.-C. a 15 apres J.-C. Errance, Paris.

Flannery , K. V. ( 1998): The ground plans of archaic states. In G. M. Feinman/}. Mar­cus (eds.), Archaic States. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, 15-57.

Fox, R. G. (1977): Ur'1an Autlrropology: Cities in their C11ltural Settings. Prentice-Hall, Engle­wood Cliffs, NJ.

Geertz, C. ( 1980): Negara: The Theatre State in Ninctcentlr Cent11ry Bali. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Glaeser, E. L. (2ou): 111c Triumph of Cities: How Our Greatest l11vention Makes Us Richer, Smarter,

Greener, Hcaltliier, aud Happier. Penguin, New York.

Hansen, M. H. (ed.) (2000): A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. Royal D anish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copen­hagen.

Hudson, MJB. A. Levine {eds.) (1999): Urban­ization a11d I.And Ou111crship ill tire Ancient Near East. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Kurtz, D. V. (2001): Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power. Westview Press, Boulder,

co.

Marcus, J. (1983): On the nature of the Mesoamerican city. In E. Z. Vogt/R. M. Leventhal (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Pattems:

Essays i11 Honor of Cordon R. Willey. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 195-242.

Masson,M. AJD. A. Freidel (eds.) (2002): Ancient

Maya Political Economies. Altamira, Walnut Creek, CA.

Nelson, B. A. (1995): Complexity, hierarchy, and scale in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and La Quemada, Zacatecas. American Antiquity 60,

597-618.

Renfrew, C. (2008): The city through time and

space: Transformations of centrality. In J. Mar­cus/j. Sabloff (eds.), 17ie Ande11t City: NeUI Per­spectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World.

SAR Press, Santa Fe, 2g-52.

Rojas, J. L. (2012): Tenochtitlan: Capital of tire Aztec Empire. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Sanders, W. TJB. J. Price (1968): Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilizatio11. Random House,

New York.

Sanders, W. T./D. Webster (1988): The Mesoamerican urban t radition. A111erica11 A11tl1ropologist 90, 510-546.

Sievers, S. (2002): Manching revisited. A11tiq11ity

76, 943-944·

Sievers, S. (2007): l\.1anc11ing: Die Keltenstadt. Kon­rad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart.

Smith, M. E. (1992): Archaeological Researclr at Aztec-Period Ruml Sites in Morelos, Mexico. }i'c,1-

ume 1, Excavatio11s a11d Architedure/Invcstiga­

ciones arqueologicas en sitios mralcs de la epoca Azteca cu Morelos, 10mo 1, excavaciones y arqui­

tectura. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Smith, M. E. (2007): Form and meaning in the

earliest cities: A new approach to ancient urban planning. ]011rnal of Planning History 6,

3-47.

Smith, M. E. (2008): Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, M. E. (2010): The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in ancient cities.

168 MICHAEL E. SMITH

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29, 137-

154.

Smith, M. E./E E Berdan (eds.) (2003): The Post­classic lvlesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Smith, M. EJJ. Lobo (�013): Cities through the ages: One thing or many? Santa Fe lnstit11te,

·Santa Fe. Southall, A. W. (1998): Tiie City in Time a11d Space.

Cambridge University Press, New York. Storper, M. (2010): Why does a city grow?

Specialisation, human capital or institutions? Urba11 Studies 47, 2027-2050.

T illy, C. (1992): Coercion, Capital, and Europea11 States, AD 99"-1990. Blackwell, Oxford.

Trigger, B. G. (1972): D eterminants of urban growth in pre-industrial societies. In P. J. Ucko/R. Tringham/G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), 1\tla111 Settlemeut, a11J Urbanism. Schenkman, Cambridge, 575-599.

Trigger, B. G. (2003): Understa11ding Early Civ­

ilizatio11s: A Comparative StHdy. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Weber, M. (1958): The City. Free Press, New York.

Wells, P. S. (2011): T he Iron Age. In S. Milisauskas (ed.), European Prehistory: A Survey. Springer, New York, 405-460.

Wirth, L. (1938): Urbanism as a way of life. Amer­ican Journal of Sociology 44, 1-24.