Cities 07

The pre-industrial cities of Kin-Sai, Constantinople, Tenochtitlan and Antwerp were each places of great organization and progress in many similar ways, yet each had signs of stratification or internal conflict that differed between cities. In terms of the social behavior of the first three cities, there is a sense of hospitality that can be seen in each, but to whom this hospitality is extended varies from city to city. In Kin-Sai, there is a general sense of friendliness and hospitality towards those “who visit the city in the way of commerce”(Polo 52). While the rulers of Constantinople and Tenochtitlan seem to be less concerned with the criteria of economic intentions in receiving their guests, they are also noted as being quite hospitable towards their guests, as seen in the first-hand experiences of Battuta and Castillo.

Although there are these instances of hospitality towards foreigners mentioned, at the same time both Constantinople and Tenochtitlan appear to also harbor somewhat negative sentiments towards foreigners, albeit to varying degrees. The division of Constantinople into halves for the use of the waterway serves a double purpose of segregation of the foreigners, who are taxed and often warred with when there are refusals to pay. Battuta’s account of the bazaars and churches as filthy and uninviting further paints a picture of the west side of the city as slum-like, inhabited by the foreigners whose main role in the society is an economic one, much like contemporary stratification that often has intersections along the lines of class and nationality in terms of residence within a city. In the case of Tenochtitlan, their treatment of foreigners had both economic and cultural elements to it, but was more violent as evidenced by the trading of Indian slaves as well as their use as sacrifices for religious ceremonies.

One of the notable differences that Polo accounted for in Kin-Sai was the existence of courtesan quarters that functioned as a sort of red-light district for the city, a facet that was not mentioned in any of the other cities. Although the account of Antwerp was brief, the bulk of the description that Durer puts forth is of a social event occurring, making this the only account that had the social element of the city as its focus.

In terms of the economies of each of these cities, all but Antwerp were mentioned as making abundant use of waterways to transport goods and their cities were designed around these rivers and bodies of water. In addition to this, the existence of foreign goods being available in the markets is mentioned in Kin-Sai and Tenochtitlan, signaling that they participated in foreign trade. Not only did they have foreign goods, both of these cities made use of the surrounding landscape to bring in various goods unique to their region. The evidence of specialization was apparent in each city, with each craftsman or artisan having their own separate spaces for work or sale of their goods or services. What differed between them was some of the details in who these specialized groups consisted of and how they organized. In Battuta’s account of the bazaars of the east bank, he noted that, “the majority of the artisans and sellers in them are women”(54). This is a division we do not see in any of the other cites. Kin-Sai had a few notable unique economic characteristics, the most notable being the use of paper currency, the only mention of currency in any of the accounts. Another difference was that many of the shops occupied the lower parts of the large dwelling houses, creating less of a division between residential and manufacturing sectors of the city. Durer noted in his viewing of the procession the existence of guilds, a feature that was not seen in the specialization of the other cities. Tenochtitlan differed in how their goods were regulated by magistrates and executive officers, creating a standard of what goods could be sold in the marketplace.

The cultural element of Constantinople and Tenochtitlan that was mentioned was primarily that of the church, which had an influence upon the political climate of each city. The church on the east bank of Constantinople was described in detail by Battuta and was very large and elaborate, employing many people and being of primary importance to the Sultan and his family. Their reverence to the Pope reinforces this heavy influence of the church in the city, as does the mention of the Pope resolving conflicts between the occasionally warring banks. The existence of cues throughout Tenochtitlan also demonstrated the importance of religion in the politics of the city, with Montezuma personally participating in the sacrifices of the Indians. The church was a large influence in Antwerp as well, which can be seen in Durer’s accounts of the various figures of the church that held prominence in the procession. In addition to this are the various wagons depicting scenes from the New Testament as well as the variety of people dressed up as various saints, further indicating the large cultural presence the church had in the city.

Religion is mentioned very briefly in Polo’s accounts, stating that they are idolaters, but nothing besides this is discussed. Kin-Sai’s political climate seemed to be less influenced by religion and more by a totalitarian rule by Khan and his large numbers of multipurpose officers that functioned to suppress dissent, fight fires, regulate light usage, enforce curfew, and keep the time. Constantinople also is described as having large reserves of guards on hand, but their primary concern seems to be that of protecting the palace and less of regulating other matters. The citizens of Kin-Sai were noted as disliking the officers, missing their former rulers, yet any signs of successful dissent are not mentioned. In this regard Kin-Sai shares a similarity with Constantinople in terms of internal political conflict, but the conflict within Kin-Sai is between the native citizens against a foreign ruler, while the struggle in Constantinople is the opposite, the foreigners are the ones noted as expressing dissent. The presence of any officers in Antwerp is briefly mentioned, but their function is not described, while in Tenochtitlan there is no mention of officers in Castillo’s account.

These qualities discussed by each author give us a brief look into these societies and how the various developing institutions were simultaneously fostering growth and complexity while also creating stratification and internal conflict.