jwsr-v8n3- 292 The Status of the Far Eastern Civilization/ World System: Evidence from City Data* David Wilkinson David Wilkinson Department of Political Science University of California, Los Angeles 4289 Bunche Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1472 dow@ucla.edu http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/ journal of world-systems research, viii, 1ii, fall 2002, 292–328 http://jwsr.ucr.edu issn 1076–156x © 2002 David Wilkinson I N T RODUC TION Andre Gunder Frank’s Re-Orient and Centrality of Central Asia raise several interesting issues of a potentially empirical character, some of them relevant to our current topic of “city systems in East Asian civilization.” Did a separate Far Eastern civilization/world system ever coexist with some others in the Old World, loosely united by a single trading network or oikumene? Or were Old World cities always a single “world-system” so strongly integrated as to be part of a single social process? And whatever the degree of organization of the Old World cities, as loose trading oikumene or tightly bound social system, was that collective entity always, sometimes, or never Sinocentric? Frank would, I believe, defend the answers (a) that all the Afro-Eur-Asian civilizations/world-systems were tightly bound into a single system and process, through a linkage in Inner Asia (as we shall call it for the purposes of this paper); and (b) that at least for some time before the 19th century the single world- system into which they were bound was Sinocentric, or at least not Eurocentric, and specifi cally not Eurocentric for the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. One set of data that may bear on these questions, and serve at least in part as a source of answers, is to be found in Tertius Chandler’s pioneering collection of city size data estimates (1987). Chandler’s table set titled “ Tables of World’s Largest Cities: Th e Largest 75 Cities, 2250 b.c.–1975” (1987: 460 ff .) seems rel- * Prepared for the American Sociological Association, Anaheim, California, August 21, 2001 T. Chandler’s city data are used to inquire whether, and when, East Asia was a world system in itself, or part of a larger Old World world-system; and whether, and when, the east end of the Old World oikumene was more “advanced” than the west end. On the avail- able data, (1) A.G. Frank’s thesis of a single Old World world-system is less well supported than the thesis of a long coexistence of a plural- ity of world systems, including a separate Far Eastern system; (2) Frank’s thesis of the general economic lead of “China” over “Europe” is sup- ported; (3) there is evidence of an interesting medieval outrunning of the “west end” by the “east end” economy, which begs further inves- tigation. abstract mailto:dow@ucla.edu http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/ http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ David Wilkinson293 The Status Of The Far Eastern Civilization/World System 294 evant and useful here. Evidence bearing on the empirical “centrality of Central Asia,” upon the integration through Inner Asia of the Old World oikumene as a world-system, and conversely upon the individuality of its various components, should be present in the answers to the questions, How many of the largest cities were Inner Asian; and, What relation is there between the population of the largest Inner Asian cities, and that of the largest Old World cities? When and if Inner Asian cities were many, and large by comparison with outlying cities of what I have labeled (1987, 1992–93) “Central Civilization” (mostly found in Southwest Asia, North Africa and Europe), “Indic Civilization,” and “Far Eastern Civilization,” both the integration of an Old World world-system and the “centrality of Central Asia” become more plausible propositions than when Inner Asian cities are few and relatively small. Chandler’s tables for 2250 bc (only 8 cities @ a threshold of circa 30,000) and 2000 bc (9 @ 25k) show no cities east of present Iran (see the maps for these years). At these dates, on these data, there is no evidence of an Old World-wide world-system. An Indic city appears in the 1800 bc table (10 @ 20k), and there is at least one Indic city from 1200 bc (15 @ 24k) on. Far Eastern cities appear in Chandler’s tables for 1360 bc (16 @ 24k) and thereafter. Furthermore, the populations of the largest Far Eastern cities (e.g. Sian, Loyang, Lintzu) and, to a lesser degree, the largest Indic cities (e.g. Ayodhya, Hastinapura, Kausambi), become comparable to those of the largest cities—Egyptian Th ebes and Memphis, Mesopotamian Babylon) of what I have labeled “Central Civilization” (the polycultural fusion of Egyptian/Northeast African with Mesopotamian/Southwest Asian Civilization after c. 1500 bc). For these times, then, an Old World world-system is conceiv- able. However, no cities appear in Inner Asia in Chandler’s tables for 1800 bc, 1600 bc (11 @ 24k), 1200 bc, 1000 bc (14 @ 25k), 800 bc (17 @ 25k), 650 bc (20 @ 30k), or 430 bc (51 @ 30k). Th is seems consistent with a reading which fi nds separate Central and Far Eastern (and Indic) world systems coexisting at these times. From 200 bc on (55 @ 30k), however, Inner Asian cities begin to be found in Chandler’s tables. An Inner Asian convergence and joining of the three major world systems becomes possible, and should be explored in appropriate detail. 2 0 0 BC One city in western Inner Asia, Balkh, appears, as the easternmost urban extension of what I would call Central Civilization; the simultaneous appear- ance of Peshawar, a city on the northwest Indic frontier, and the absence of any other Inner Asian city, suggests that the trade nexus here does not include the Far Eastern Civilization. Balkh is 1/4 the size of the largest Central system city, Alexandria; Peshawar is 1/9 the size of the largest Indic system city, Patna. I would accordingly incline to view Balkh and Peshawar as parts of the semipe- ripheries of two world systems/civilizations, each of which is growing toward the other along a linking trade route. A D 10 0 75  3 0 K Now a collection of Inner Asian cities appears in Chandler’s list: Merv and Balkh; Peshawar; plus westward extensions of the Far Eastern system, Tunhuang and Kanchow. Peshawar, the Kushan capital, is the largest Indic city, but Balkh is 1/10 the size of the largest Central city (Rome), and Kanchow 1/9 the size of the largest Far Eastern city (Loyang). I would therefore interpret this distribution as the further extension eastward of the Central semiperiphery, the beginning of a matching extension westward of the Far Eastern semiperiphery, and a notewor- thy northward movement of the Indic core. A D 361 5 0  4 0 K All the Inner Asian cities listed ad 100 turn up missing. Th is is not just an artifact of the shrinkage of the list (75 to 50) and rise of the threshold (30k to 40k): had the same restrictive criteria been applied to the ad 100 list, only Tunhuang would have dropped out. Th e “rimland” world-systems seem to have pulled their semiperipheries back from Inner Asia. A D 5 0 0 5 0  4 0 K Merv and Balkh have returned. Th ey are 1/9 the size of the largest Central cities, Constantinople and Ctesiphon. Th ere is no matching extension of the Indic city set northward, or of the Far Eastern westward. I would therefore read this as evidence that Central Civilization is extending its semiperiphery into western Inner Asia. A D 622 51  4 0 Merv remains; Samarkand replaces Balkh; Kashgar appears, soon to be a target of the T’ang Far Eastern state. Merv is 1/10 the size of the largest Central city, Ctesiphon, Kashgar 1/8 the size of the largest Far Eastern city, Changan. Because of its trade connections, Kashgar might be seen as a shared Indic-Far Eastern semiperipheral extension into Inner Asia now matching that of Central Civilization; but hardly more than that. Editor's Hint Click on section header to go to the corresponding map. Click on the map to return to this page. David Wilkinson295 The Status Of The Far Eastern Civilization/World System 296 largest cities. But this amounts to a core shift eastward in central Civilization: no comparable core shift toward Inner Asia is shown for either Indic or Far Eastern civilizations, and Merv’s size will soon decline again. A D 12 0 0 73  4 0 K To Merv, Bokhara, Samarkand and Balasaghun, this table adds Herat and Ghor. Afghanistan-based Islamic conquerors of Delhi have momentarily erased the boundary between Central and Indic civilizations. Balasaghun is 1/6 the size of Hangchow, Bokhara 1/3 the size of Fez. What is implied is some net move- ment since 1100 of the Central and, to a lesser degree, the Far Eastern semipe- ripheries towards each other. Unifi cation of the Old World world-systems seems nearer in sight then ever. But…. A D 13 0 0 75  4 0 K All of the Inner Asian cities of ad 1200 have vanished. Th is is one conse- quence of the Mongol destruction of the Khwarezm state (Khorasan), an Inner Asian semiperipheral extension of Central Civilization. (Th e Mongol destruc- tion in Inner Asia, and the failure of their invasions of India, incidentally restore the autonomy of Indic civilization, as well as its relative isolation.) Two westward extensions of Far Eastern civilization are seen, Turfan and Kashgar, the latter 1/9 the size of Hangchow. A D 14 0 0 75  45K Only Samarkand is found in Inner Asia, 1/3 the size of Cairo; as Tamerlane’s capital, its size refl ects a real power shift, but his invasions of India have elimi- nated Delhi and forced Indic civilization even farther from any Inner Asian con- vergence. Ming-Mongol wars have also removed the westward extensions of Far Eastern Civilization, so the Inner Asian linkage is even weaker than in ad 1300, indeed the weakest since the ad 361 table. A D 15 0 0 75  5 0 K Th ere has been a partial recovery in Inner Asia: to Samarkand add resus- citated Bokhara and Turfan. But Samarkand is only 1/7 the size of Cairo, and Turfan but 1/11 the size of Peking. Th e wounded Central and Far Eastern civilizations have resumed their expansion towards a juncture; so, but to a much lesser degree, has Indic, where Delhi reappears. Th e move toward fusion is about where it was ad 622. A D 8 0 0 56  4 0 K In this table, Bokhara joins Merv and Samarkand; Jayapuram extends Indic northward; Lhasa complements Kashgar as an Indic-Far Eastern link. But Samarkand is 1/9 the size of the largest Central city, Baghdad (Merv and Bokhara are smaller), Lhasa 1/6 the size of Changan. Jayapuram is 3/5 the size of Kanauj, the largest Indic city. Th e Indic core seems to have shifted northward somewhat, the Far Eastern somewhat westward, but a bit less; Constantinople having declined precipitously, the Central core has also shifted eastward some- what, though not to Inner Asia. If this movement were to continue, an Inner Asian confl uence might ensue. A D 9 0 0 61  4 0 K Bokhara, Samarkand, Kashgar and Lhasa remain; Jayapuram and Merv are gone; Balasaghun is added. Again comparing the largest Inner Asian extension of a civilization to its largest city, Bokhara is 1/9 the size of Baghdad, Kashgar 1/10 the size of Changan; Indic has no northward extension. Th e Indic core has shifted south again, as has its semiperiphery; the Far Eastern core has shifted east again. In the net, the rimland world systems have moved apart, losing all the ground gained in the previous table. A D 10 0 0 70  4 0 K A larger clustering of cities appears in western Inner Asia: Bokhara, Samarkand, Kashgar, Balasaghun and Lhasa continue; Ozkend (Far Eastern), Ghazni (Central) and Th aneswar (Indic) are added. But Bokhara and Samarkand are 1/6 the size of Cordova, Ozkend 1/6 the size of Kaifeng; Th aneswar is 3/5 the size of Kanauj. Th e situation seems to repeat ad 800, with a bit more emphasis: the lost ground has been more than made up, the rimland systems are fl owing toward each other again. A D 110 0 70  4 0 K Bokhara, Samarkand and Balasaghun remain; Lahore replaces Ghazni; Ozkend, Th aneswar and Lhasa are gone. Bokhara is now 1/3 the size of Constantinople, Balasaghun 1/10 the size of Kaifeng. Central Civilization has continued to “fl ow” eastward, but Indic and Far Eastern have pulled back. In any series of snapshots taken at intervals, intervening transitory events are lost. I did not map Chandler’s table for ad 1150 (nor his later tables at less than hundred-year intervals). But ad 1150 may have been Inner Asia’s chance for true centrality: in that table, Seljuk Merv equals Constantinople as the world’s David Wilkinson297 The Status Of The Far Eastern Civilization/World System 298 A D 16 0 0 75  6 0 K Of Inner Asian cities, only Bokhara makes this list, 1/7 the size of Constantinople. A powerful linkage is indeed being established—I would by this time judge that the Indian subcontinent has probably been recruited into the Central world-system; but the linkage is overseas, refl ected in the appearance in this table of Goa. No Indic or Far Eastern Inner Asian city outpost appears. Inner Asian linkage is back to about the ad 500 level. A D 170 0 75  6 0 K Bokhara continues, at 1/9 the size of Constantinople. No Far Eastern city-outpost is found in Inner Asia. If an Indic world-system persists, it has a signifi cant northward extension in Srinagar, 1/3 the size of Ahmedabad. (I have however not previously treated Srinagar, which appears in Chandler’s lists in 430 bc, 200 bc, ad 100, ad 361, ad 500, ad 622 as an “Inner Asian” link city, but as a dead end of a north Indic route.) A D 18 0 0 75  77 K Bokhara is gone; Peshawar replaces Srinagar; again, no Far Eastern city- outpost is found in Inner Asia. Th e Indian subcontinent is by now certainly integrated into the Central system; the second largest British city is Lucknow. A D 19 0 0 75  35 0 An enormous Eurocentric growth in city numbers and sizes has left Inner Asia completely off the list. Even assuming that a Far Eastern world-system persists—I would suspect that it too has by now been absorbed into the Central system—its connections are in seaports like Tientsin, Shanghai and canton. CONC LUSION I would conclude that Chandler’s data are more consistent with the inter- pretation that there were several Old World world-systems, the three largest of which merged after 1500 mainly as a result of European states’ overseas imperial, especially trade-imperial, expansions, than with the interpretation that fi nds only one Old World world-system, with a strong continental connection through Inner Asia. Assuming the Old World world-systems were indeed many, not one, till a modern date, there remains Frank’s other issue: was the real-world history of these world-systems in some sense “Sinocentric,” requiring a “re-Orienting” of our history-writing? Th e Chandler data may have a bearing on the “empirical Sinocentricity” issue. As a fi rst approximation, we may ask, at any moment, which competing party had the largest city, implying the largest political extraction of, or indus- trial exchange for, surplus food production. One could see this as a comparison between the claims of “Europe” and “China” for the status of “most advanced soci- ety.” However, neither “Europe” nor “China” seems to me to be genuine world- systems; I will therefore give the question more gradations, and ask it for Central and Far Eastern world-systems as well; and not omit Indic. As no “European” or “Chinese” city does appear, and no “Central” city could appear, before Chandler’s 1360 bc table, we shall begin this follow-up inquiry at that time. For each date thereafter, the largest city in either “Europe” or “China,” and the largest in either Central, Indic, or Far Eastern civilizations, is named in Tables 1 and 2, in its appropriate column; ties are refl ected by multiple entries. (Note that “Th ebes” is the Egyptian city, not the Greek city.) Table 1 – Which Had the Largest City? Europe China Ao Anyang Sian Sian Lintzu Yenhsiatsu Rome Cordova Kaifeng Hangchow Hangchow Nanking Peking Peking Peking London Constantinople Constantinople Changan Changan Changan Changan 1360 BC 1200 BC 1000 BC 800 BC 650 BC 430 BC AD 100 AD 1000 AD 1100 AD 1200 AD 1300 AD 1400 AD 1500 AD 1600 AD 1800 AD 1900 AD 361 AD 500 200 BC AD 622 AD 800 AD 900 AD 1700 Constantinople David Wilkinson299 The Status Of The Far Eastern Civilization/World System 300 In this set of comparisons, “China” generally outperforms “Europe.” However, Central Civilization (which is usually non-Eurocentric) generally outperforms Far Eastern (which is usually Sinocentric) until late in the Northern Sung dynasty, when the balance radically shifts for 600 years. Both facts are interest- ing: given the greater antiquity of the Central system, it is the shift that perhaps should seem surprising. Th ere was a noteworthy economic reform struggle in the late Northern Sung. Has inadequate attention hitherto been given to the com- petitive merits, at the civilization/world-system scale, of the reforms of Wang An-shih (fl . 1069-1074)? Th is inquiry by no means exhausts the interesting questions raised by Frank’s arguments, nor indeed has it exhausted the data potentially relevant to such questions in Chandler’s collection. Th e relative weight of the easterly and west- erly ends of the Old World oikumene could be further explored, for instance, by looking at more urban data than only primate city sizes; perhaps a decentralized, multistate, multipolar system will show better on that measurement. Evidence bearing on the empirical Sinocentrism of the history of the oikumene may, for instance, be present in the answer to the question: what proportion of the largest cities, in each snapshot year, was Far Eastern (as a fraction of the whole collec- tion, and also vs. Central or Indic)? What proportion of the total population of the largest cities was Far Eastern? And of course Chandler’s tables are hardly the last word on city sizes. Historical and archaeological progress will revise such data (cf. e.g. Chandler 1987 vs. Chandler and Fox, 1974), and any conclusions therefore drawn are as tentative as necessary. Normal science may well revise data and theories at a rate proportional to the number of workers in the fi eld (Wilkinson’s Law of Obsolescence?). Ask any astronomer how it feels to fi nd that “Everything you know is wrong”; some are exhilarated, some depressed. Pending future exhilara- tion and depression—much of both are to be expected from Inner Asian archae- ology—we use what there is. In this necessarily tentative manner, we would conclude, at this point and on the available data, that (1) Frank’s thesis of a single Old World world-system is less well supported than the thesis of a long coexistence of a plurality of world- systems, including a separate Far Eastern system; (2) Frank’s thesis of the general economic lead of “China” over “Europe” is supported, if one accepts these as gen- uine systemic entities; but even if one does not, as I do not, (3) there yet remains evidence of an interesting medieval outrunning of the Central by the Far Eastern world-system, which begs further investigation. Table 2 – Which Had the Largest City? Central Far Eastern 1360 BC Thebes 1200 BC Memphis 1000 BC Thebes Sian 800 BC Thebes Sian 650 BC Nineveh 430 BC Babylon 200 BC Changan AD 100 Rome AD 361 AD 500 AD 622 Ctesiphon AD 800 Baghdad AD 900 Baghdad AD 1000 Cordova AD 1100 Kaifeng AD 1200 Hangchow AD 1300 Hangchow AD 1400 Nanking AD 1500 Peking AD 1600 Peking AD 1700 AD 1800 Peking AD 1900 London Constantinople Constantinople Constantinople D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler 1987:460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 2250 B.C. Memphis Heracleopolis Assur Nippur ErechHeliopolis Ebla MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 30 thousand, 8 total in table, 7 on map (no location posted for Agade), derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Memphis Heliopolis Cities and Their Civilizations in 2000 B.C. Assur Nippur Ur Thebes Lagash Susa Mari Source: Chandler, 1987:460 MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 25 thousand, 9 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Memphis Heliopolis Thebes Susa Mari EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION Source: Chandler 1987:460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 1800 B.C. Isin Heracleopolis Asyut Kerma Mohenjo-daro INDIC CIVILIZATION MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 20 thousand, 10 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Memphis Susa EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION Kerma Source: Chandler, 1987: 460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 1600 B.C. Babylon Nineveh Nekhen Khattushash HazorAvaris Knossos Gortyna MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION AEGEAN CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 24 thousand, 11 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987:460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 1360 B.C. Memphis Susa Heliopolis Knossos Hz Erech Thebes Ug Amarna Dur-Kurigalzu Ar Ao FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION Mycena Khattushas Washshukkani Nineveh CENTRAL CIVILIZATION AEGEAN CIVILIZATION Ar Argos Hz Hazor Ug Ugarit ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 24 thousand, 16 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Source: Chandler 1987:460 Memphis Susa Heliopolis Erech Thebes AEGEAN CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION Cities and Their Civilizations in 1200 B.C. Khattushash Dur-Kurigalzu Argos Ao Anyang Duras Ayodhya Tanis INDIC CIVILIZATION Mycenae Nineveh CENTRAL CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 24 thousand, 15 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Memphis Susa Heliopolis Erech Thebes FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Source: Chandler 1987:460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 1000 B.C. Hastinapura Jerusalem Babylon Saba Changan CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Kweiteh Pyongyang Loyang Nineveh ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, c. threshold 25 thousand, 14 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Memphis Susa Heliopolis Thebes FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Source: Chandler 1987: 460 Hastinapura Js Babylon Saba Changan Cities and Their Civilizations in 800 B.C. Pyongyang Calah Chicheng Kingchow Sm Van CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Nineveh Js Jerusalem Sm Smyrna Loyang ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold c. 25 thousand, 17 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Memphis Susa FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Babylo Changan Pyongyang Kingchow Van Source: Chandler, 1987: 460 Cities and Their Civilizations in 650 B.C. Ni Kausambi Js Sais Ca Napata Ayodhya Marib LintzuHsintien CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Miletus Ecbatana AEGEAN CIVILIZATION Ca Calah Js Jerusalem Ni Nineveh Loyang ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 30 thousand, 20 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Source: Chandler 1987: 461 Cities and Their Civilizations in 430 B.C. Memphis Susa ChangshKausambi Js Babylon Ecbatana Marib Benares Rome Tt At Sc GeCarthage Cyrene Meroe Damacus Persepolis Sidon Tyre Ep Sardis Ct Sp Vaisali Patna Ra Champa Luchen Corcyra Cr Me Trichinopoly Ar El Lt Taiyuan Fg Yenhsiatsu FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Soocho Srinagar Anuradhapura Ayodhya MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Dantapura Hsueh Kerch Cuicuilco Pyongyang CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Agrigentum Ar Argos At Athens Cr Croton Ct Corinth El Elis Ep Ephesus Ge Gela Js Jerusalem Me Messina Sc Syracuse Sp Sparta Tt Tarentum Ra Rajagriha Fg Fenghsiang Lt Lintzu Loyang ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 30 thousand, 51 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Cities and Their Civilizations in 200 B.C. Memphis Susa Changsha Js Babylon Ec Marib Benares Rome At Sc Carthage Cyrene Meroe Ds EpCt Sp Srinaga Vaisali Patna Loyang Me Anuradhapura Vienne Al Rayy Se Balkh Nanking Changan Kaifeng Paithan Tosali Taxil Peshawa Sopara Broach Ujjai Aror Kolkai Izapa Olbia Amasia Rd Source: Chandler 1987: 461 FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATIONINDIC CIVILIZATION MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Kolhapur Madurai Trichinopoly CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Soochow Al Alexandria At Athens Ct Corinth Ds Damascus Ec Ecbatana Ep Ephesus Js Jerusalem Me Messina Rd Rhodes Sc Syracuse Se Seleucia Sp Sparta Lucheng Pengcheng Pergamum Cirta CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Cuicuilco Tres Zapotes ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 30 thousand, 55 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. Editor's Comment Click on the map to return to the corresponding page in the article. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Source: Chandler, 1987: 463 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 100 Memphis Kingchow Ecbatana Zafar Benares At Syracuse Carthage Stakhr Antioch Ep Pm Ct Srinaga Patna So Loyang Alexandria Rayy Balkh NaChangan Ta PaithanBroach Ujjain Aror Angora Cadiz London Nimes Lyon Rome Milan Capua Leptis Th Sm Petra Edessa Byzantium Apame Merv Ayodhya Oxyrhynchus Gy Teotihuacán Madurai Tosali Anuradhapura Patala Dohad Junnar Kavery Jullundur Nisibis Seleucia Tunhuan Canton Hangchow Peking Changsha Wu MEXICAN CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Hwando Kyongju Namhan Kashiwara Pc Kanchow CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Peshawar ChengduBabylon At Athens Ct Corinth Ep Ephesus Gy Gortyna Pm Pergamum Sm Smyrna Th Thessalonica Ostia Seville Kolhapur Na Nanking Pc Pengcheng So Soochow Ta Taiyuan Wu Wuchang ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 30 thousand, 75 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987: 464 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 361 Wuchang Marib Athen Syracus Carthage Stakh Antioch Srinagar Alexandria Rayy Changan Ujjain Aror Vienne Rome Milan Leptis Thessa- lonica Sm Edessa Constantinople Teotihuacán Anuradhapura Kavery Ctesiphon Trier Axum Ds Jerusalem Dvin Arles Caesarea Nisibis Ye Liaotung Prome Taxila Kyongju Chengdu Indrapura Kanchi Tamralipti Benares Patna Ayodhya MEXICAN CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Hwando Hippo CENTRAL CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Soochow Ds Damascus Sm Smyrna Nishapur Nanking ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 50 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Source: Chandler 1987: 465 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 500 Wuchang Carthage Stakhr Antioch Alexandria Rayy Changan Rome Kavery Damascus Jerusalem Caesarea Nisibis Ye Prome Kyongju Chengdu IndurapuraKanchi Benares Ayodhya Tikal Constantinople Coptos Isfahan Edessa Amida Loyang Yangchow PyongyangTatung Merv Balkh Nishapur Sialkot Gwalior Mandasor Zafar Pengcheng Balakbal Teotihuacán Ungjin Anuradhapura Ctesiphon MEXICAN CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Srinagar Soochow Nanking ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 47 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler 1987: 466 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 622 Wuchang Carthage StakhrAlexandria Rayy Changan Aror Rome Teotihuacán Anuradhapura Kavery Ctesiphon Damascus Jerusalem Caesarea Ye Prom Kyongju IndrapuraKanchi Benares Constantinople Coptos Edess Pyongyang MervAlepp Kanauj Vatapi Madura Kermanshah Thaneswar Bezwada Kashgar Tajin Thessalonic Dvin Liaotung Loyang Isanapura Seville Asuka MEXICAN CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Samarkand Srinagar Kamarupa Pundravardhana CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Nanking Hangchow Yangchow Chengdu Kausambi ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 51 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 800 Source: Chandler 1987: 467 Alexandria MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Kairwan Fostat Qus Gao Cordova Rome Cs Mecca Basra Rayy Km Bd Kufa Anba Ds Js Nishapur Merv Bokhara Samarkand Jayapuram Mansura Ujjain Ellora Bezwada Kanchi Madurai Kanauj Benares Patna Lhasa Indrapura Kyongju Kyoto Canton Tali JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION INDONESIAN CIVILIZATION Copan Tikal Tajin Tollan Kashgar Malatya Constantinople Anhilvada Kaifeng WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATION Hangchow Loyang Changan Chengdu Wuchang Yangchow SoochowNanking Nanchang Bd Bagdad Cs Caesarea Ds Damascus Js Jerusalem Km Kermanshah Prambanan ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 56 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987: 468 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 900 Alexandria Rayy Rome Tollan Bagdad Jerusale Caesare Kyongju AngkorKanchi Benare Constantinople Qu Bokhara Samarkand Kanauj Madurai Hamadan Kashgar Tajin Thessalonica Ani Siraf Balasaghun Nishapur Mansura Av Cambay Manyakheta Tanjore Lhasa Tali Canton Kyoto Peking Kaifeng Nanning Ellora Chunar Kufa Fostat Kairwan Preslav Merid Tarsus Silow Atil Prambanan Seville Cordova MEXICAN CIVILIZATION JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION INDONESIAN CIVILIZATION Vengipura Hangchow Loyang Changan Chengdu Wuchang Nanking Nanchang Yangchow Soochow Bihar Av Anhilvada ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 61 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1000 Source: Chandler, 1987: 469 MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Kairwan Qus Cordova Cs Basra RayyBd Js Nishapur Bokhara Mansura Av Kanauj Lhas Kyoto Canton Ya So Ha Na Loyang Chengd Tali Prambanan Kf TajinTollan Th Ochrida Venice Kiev Seville Po Cairo Tinnis Ap Amid Ani Siraf Shiraz Isfahan Bn ChunarKu Ujjain Somnath Cambay Manyakheta Tanjore Nanning FuchoChuanchow Sy Wu Peking Liaoyang Py Songdo Pagan JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION Hasa Ghazni Angkor SiaTsinchow INDONESIAN CIVILIZATION Constantinopl Ap Aleppo Bd Bagdad Cs Caesarea Js Jerusalem Po Palermo Th Thessalonica Balasaghun Ozkend Kashgar Av Anhilvada Bn Benares Ku Khajuraho Ha Hangchow Kf Kaifeng Na Nanking Py Pyongyang So Soochow Sy Siangyang Wu Wuchang Ya Yangchow Thaneswar Samarkand ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 70 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987: 470 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1100 Wuchang Rayy Sian Bagdad Kayseri Indrapura Kanchi Benares Constantinople Qus Ya Bokhara Kanauj Thessalonica Loyang Mansura Cambay Tali Canton So Na Ha Kyoto Peking Edessa Sivas Basra Isfahan Mecca Chengting Siangyang Ninghsia Fuchow PyongyangLiaoyang Songdo Nishapur Diyarbekir Cairo Bougie Fez Meknes Marrakesh Tinnis Polonnaruwa Kalyan Dhar Lahore Merv Salerno Palermo Cordova Seville Granada VeniceMilan Kiev Cholula Cahokia Bust Ramavati Anhilvada Angkor Pagan JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION MEXICAN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION MISSISSIPPIAN CIVILIZATION Ha Hangchow Na Nanking So Soochow Ya Yangchow Chuanchow Balasaghun Yunnanfu Tsinchow Kaifeng Samarkand ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 70 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1200 Source: Chandler 1987: 472 Paris Rouen Cologne Venice Po Cp León Seville Cordova Granada Qus Cairo D Alexandria Fez Ceuta Marrakesh Rabat Bougie Ninghsia Peking Hweining Kamakura Kyoto Fuchow Ha Ya Canton Angkor Pagan Puri Tali Chengdu Sj Na Kf Loyan Sian Siangyang Wu Kt So Polonnaruwa Kanchi Gaur Samarkand Kalinjar Delhi Cambay Ghor Herat Balasaghun Tiflis Ap Ds Acre Basra Bd Qom Rayy Bokhara Merv Qish Isfahan Kr Konia JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION Milan Mosul Ap Aleppo Bd Bagdad Cp Constantinople Ds Damascus Dt Damietta Kr Kayseri Po Palermo London Chuanchow Haripunjai MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Tenayuca Ha Hangchow Kf Kaifeng Kt Kingtehchen Na Nanking Sj Shangjao So Soochow Wu Wuchang Sivas ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 40 thousand, 73 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION D avid W ilkinson  Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1300 Source: Chandler 1987: 474 Paris Rouen Cologne VeniceM Cp Seville Cordova Granada Qus Cairo DamiettaAlexandri Fe Marrakesh Bougie Ninghsia Peking Kamakura Kyoto Fuchow Ha Ya Canton Angkor Chengdu N Sian Wu So Gaur Delhi Bagdad Isfahan Konia JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Lo Mali Njimiye Bruges Ghent Gn Bologna Fl Np Prague Th Caffa Sarai Tabriz Yezd Hormuz Cuttack Warangal Madurai Kayal Quilon Thana Turfan Vijaya Sukotai Kashgar Taiyuan Kt Majapahit WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION INDONESIAN CIVILIZATION Texcoco Damascus Trebizond Sale Tlemcen Ceuta Tunis Meknes Yunnanfu Kaifeng Bo Bologna Cp Constantinople Fl Florence Gn Genoa Lo London Ml Milan Np Naples Th Thessalonica Chuanchow Ha Hangchow Kt Kingtehchen Na Nanking So Soochow Wu Wuchang Ya Yangchow ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 40 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1400 Source: Chandler, 1987: 476 Paris Rouen VeniceMilan Cp Seville Granada Qus Cairo Damiett FezMarrakesh Tunis Peking Kyoto Fuchow Ha Ya Canton Chengdu Na Sian Wu SoBagdad Karaman JAPANESE CIVILIZATION FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION MEXICAN CIVILIZATION Lo Mali Bruge Ghent Gn Florence Prague Caffa Shiraz Hormuz Cuttack Quilon Vijaya Taiyuan Kt WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATION INDIC CIVILIZATION ToledoLisbon Va Novgorod Troki Tlemcen Oyo Bursa Aleppo Damascu Trebizond Tabriz Calicut Cambay Anhilvada Pandua Hano Pegu Ningpo Nanchang Vijayanagar Ayutia Seoul Yunnanfu Gulbarga Azcapotzalco Texcoco Riobamba PERUVIAN CIVILIZATION Sultaniya Kaifeng Luang Prabang Ava Cp Constantinople Gn Genoa Lo London Va Valencia Chuanchow Samarkand Ha Hangchow Kt Kingtehchen Na Nanking So Soochow Wu Wuchang Ya Yangchow ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 45 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987: 478 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1500 Rouen Ve Seville Granad Cairo Fez Marrakesh Peking Fuchow Ha Ya Canton Chengdu Na Kaifeng Sian Wu So Gau Samarkand Delhi Cambay Aleppo Damascus Bokhara FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION MEXICAN CIVILIZATION L SeoulTaiyuan Ng Yunnanfu Ayutia Pegu Ava Arakan Vijayanagar Cuttack St Amber Chitor Mandu Bh Ahmednagar Ahmedabad Tatta Turfan Bursa Tabriz Hormuz Shiraz Pskov Moscow Smolensk Tirgovishtea Pg Lisbon Paris Np Fl Milan Gn Bo Ghent Bruge Tunis PERUVIAN CIVILIZATION Jaunpur Ad Constantinople Hsuchow Ad Adrianople Bo Bologna Fl Florence Gn Genoa Lo London Np Naples Pg Prague Ve Venice Chuanchow Oyo Kano Gao WEST AFRICAN CIVILIZATION Cuzco Tenochtitlan Texcoco Bh Burhanpur St Satgaon Ha Hangchow Na Nanking Ng Nanchang So Soochow Wu Wuchang Ya Yangchow INDIC CIVILIZATION ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 50 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1600 Source: Chandler, 1987: 481 Roue Ve Seville Gr Cairo FezMarrakesh Peking Ha Canto Chengdu Na Kaifeng Sian So Cambay Aleppo Damascus Bokhara FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION London Taiyuan Ayutia Arakan Ah Burs Tabriz Moscow Prague Lisbon Pari Np Fl Milan Gn Bo Oyo Katsina Sumpu Yedo Osaka Ky Yamaguchi Changchun Kt Wu Hs Penukonda Goa Bi Ujjain Agra Pa Ho Ud Surat Qazvin Isfahan Ad Bucharest Po Messina Va Madrid Potosi CENTRAL CIVILIZATION JAPANESE CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Ro Zaria Kazargamu Cp Algiers Cuttack Toungoo Hyderabad CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Ahmedabad Ad Adrianople Bo Bologna Cp Constantinople Fl Florence Gn Genoa Gr Granada Np Naples Po Palermo Ro Rome Va Valencia Ve Venice Fuchow Ah Ahmednagar Bi Bijapur Ho Hooghly Pa Patna Ud Udaipur Ha Hangchow Hs Hsuchow Kt Kingtehchen Ky Kyoto Na Nanking So Soochow Wu Wuchang Rajmahal ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 60 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Maps shows only these civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler 1987:483 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1700 Rouen Venice Seville Cairo Fez Meknes Peking Ha Canto Na Sian So Aleppo Damascus FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION London Ayutia Araka Tabriz Moscow Lisbon Np Fl Ml Gn Bo Yedo Osaka Ky Kingtehchen Wuchang Hs Qazvin Isfahan Ad Po Madrid Potosf CENTRAL CIVILIZATION JAPANESE CIVILIZATION Sendai Nagoya Ka Seoul Tientsin Chinkiang Ninghsi Ava Lhas Patn BenaresAgra Bednur Smyrna Hb Am An Br Ly Ma Dublin Gondar TunisAlgiers Puebla CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Vienna Ro Mexico City Paris Bokhara Fuchow Copenhagen Constantinople Ahmedabad Ad Adrianople Am Amsterdam An Antwerp Bo Bologna Br Brussels Fl Florence Gn Genoa Hb Hamburg Ly Lyon Ma Marseille Ml Milan Np Naples Po Palermo Ro Rome Ningpo Dacc Srinagar CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Aurangabad Ha Hangchow Hs Hsuchow Ka Kanazawa Ky Kyoto Na Nanking So Soochow ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 60 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION T h e S tatu s O f T h e Fa r E a stern C iv iliz atio n /W o rld S ystem  Source: Chandler, 1987: 485 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1800 Ru Venice Seville Cairo Peking Canton SianDamascus Lo Moscow Lisbon Paris Np Ml Yedo Osaka Kt Wu Po Madrid JAPANESE CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Seoul Tientsin Da Pa Smyrna Hb Am Ly Ma Dublin Tunis Ro Amarapura Calcutta Surakarta Bombay Madra Surat Baroda Ujjain Bn Lucknow Delhi Peshawar Bagdad St. Petersburg Vienna Prague Berlin Ba Cadiz Glasgow Edinburgh Manchester Oyo Mexico CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Bordeaux Constantinople Adrianopl FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION Ningpo Hangchow Lanchow Kf Sh Changsha Hyderaba Murshidabad Chengdu Kyoto Nagoya CENTRAL CIVILIZATION CENTRAL CIVILIZATION Copenhagen Ahmedabad Am Amsterdam Ba Barcelona Hb Hamburg Lo London Ly Lyon Ma Marseille Ml Milan Np Naples Po Palermo Ro Rome Ru Rouen Soochow Fuchow Foshan Bn Benares Da Dacca Pa Patna Kf Kaifeng Kt Kingtehchen Sh Shanghai Wu Wuchang ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest 75 cities, 77 thousand +, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. CENTRAL CIVILIZATION D avid W ilkinson  Source: Chandler, 1987: 492 Cities and Their Civilizations in A.D. 1900 Boston New York Philadelphia Baltimore BuffaloMinneapolis Chicago St. Louis Cincinnati Cleveland San Francisco Mexico City Rio de Janeiro Buenos Aires London Birmingham Warsaw Moscow St. Petersburg Odessa Constantinople Budapest Lisbon Ps Dublin Madrid Glasgow Liverpool Ed Ld Am Rt Lyon Ch Vi Breslau Pg Dr Le Ff CoBr Marseille Rome Mu Naples Barcelona Milan Rr Berlin Manchester Lodz Bombay Calcutta Madras Hyderabad Canton Hankow Hangchow Shanghai Tientsin Peking Sydney Melbourne Cairo Rh Sheffield Nc An Gl Pittsburgh FAR EASTERN CIVILIZATION? JAPANESE CIVILIZATION? Tokyo Osaka Kyoto C E N T R A L C I V I L I Z A T I O N Hamburg Am Amsterdam An Antwerp Br Brussels Ch Copenhagen Co Cologne Dr Dresden Ed Edinburgh Ff Frankfurt Gl Gleiwitz Ld Leeds Le Leipzig Mu Munich Nc Newcastle Pg Prague Ps Paris Rh Rhondda Rr Ruhr Rt Rotterdam Vi Vienna ©1992 by David Wilkinson. License to reproduce granted gratis, only for use in works themselves distributed at no charge, and in which this map is reproduced in full including this note. All other rights reserved. = Largest cities, threshold 350 thousand, 75 total, derived from Chandler's list (1987) via Wilkinson (1992-1993). Map shows only those civilizations which had cities on this list. The Status Of The Far Eastern Civilization/World System  BIBLIOGRAPHY Chandler, Tertius (1987). Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth : An Historical Census. Lewiston, NY: St. David’s University Press. Chandler, Tertius, and Gerald Fox (1974). 3000 Years of Urban Growth. New York: Academic Press. Frank, Andre Gunder (1992). The Centrality of Central Asia. Amsterdam : VU University Press. Frank, Andre Gunder (1998). ReOrient : Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley : University of California Press. Wilkinson, David (1987). “Central Civilization.” Comparative Civilizations Review, Fall, 31- 59. Wilkinson, David (1992). “Cities, Civilizations, and Oikumenes.” Comparative Civilizations Review, Fall, 51-87. Wilkinson, David (1993). “Cities, Civilizations, and Oikumenes.” Comparative Civilizations Review, Spring, 41-72. Wilkinson Article Maps 2250 B.C. 2000 B.C. 1800 B.C. 1600 B.C. 1360 B.C. 1200 B.C. 1000 B.C. 800 B.C. 650 B.C. 430 B.C. 200 B.C. A.D. 100 A.D. 361 A.D. 500 A.D. 622 A.D. 800 A.D. 900 A.D. 1000 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1200 A.D. 1300 A.D. 1400 A.D. 1500 A.D. 1600 A.D. 1700 A.D. 1800 A.D. 1900 References