{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030721966205837174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019969278033794162, 'mean_word_length': 4.821428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The consumer city revisited: the vicus and the city

Moses Finley's study of the ancient city in 1977 embraced the Biicher-Sombart-Weber thesis of the consumer /parasite city1 as in fact Collingwood had done some 30 years earlier2 by laying stress on 4 essential features: 1. The ancient city unlike the mediaeval had no separation of function between town and country (Bucher) 2. The ancient town relied on the products of outside agricultural labour for its existence (Sombart) 3. The major income for urban consumers came from rural rents, not from commercial enterprises (Weber) 4. The commodity production of towns was essentially petty (Finley).