Was Thebes Necessary? Contingency in Spatial Modelling

TL;DR

This paper explores the role of contingency in spatial modeling of settlement formation, highlighting how different model choices can lead to varied outcomes, especially in the context of Greek city-states like Thebes.

Contribution

It re-examines the rise of Greek city-states using a gravity model, emphasizing the importance of contingency and social forces beyond simple network modeling.

Findings

Thebes' rise is highly contingent and influenced by social factors.

Model outcomes are sensitive to input choices, affecting historical interpretations.

Geography and proximity explain Athens' success more than Thebes'.

Abstract

When data is poor we resort to theory modelling. This is a two-step process. We have first to identify the appropriate type of model for the system under consideration and then to tailor it to the specifics of the case. To understand settlement formation, which is the concern of this paper, this not only involves choosing input parameter values such as site separations but also input functions which characterises the ease of travel between sites. Although the generic behaviour of the model is understood, the details are not. Different choices will necessarily lead to different outputs (for identical inputs). We can only proceed if choices that are "close" give outcomes are similar. Where there are local differences it suggests that there was no compelling reason for one outcome rather than the other. If these differences are important for the historic record we may interpret this as sensitivity to contingency. We re-examine the rise of Greek city states as first formulated by Rihll and Wilson in 1979, initially using the same "retail" gravity model. We suggest that, whereas cities like Athens owe their position to a combination of geography and proximity to other sites, the rise of Thebes is the most contingent, whose success reflects social forces outside the grasp of simple network modelling.