At 01:13 AM 2/5/2007, Rod Nicholas wrote:
>Josephus claims 600,000 to 1,300,000 were killed when the Romans ...
The Roman period added public works - roads, aqueducts, etc. I
suppose that increased the maximum number of people the land could
support. It is also the time of the Nabateans which may indicate more
rainfall in the area. But I don't know much about that period so I'll
leave this to others.
Arie S. Issar, "Impacts of climate variations on water management and
related socio-economic systems", UNESCO 1995.
"From about 2,300 to 1,700 BP a global cold period occurred. In the
opinion of Issar (1990a) this was the early stage of a mini-glacial
period ... The more benign climate in the desert of Judea and Edom promoted the
flourishing of the Nabatean kingdom which was established in the
first century B.C."
>What of natural attrition; high infant mortality, disease
>drought and pestilence?
These are included in the 20th century global growth rate. The point
is that if the Canaanite population did not grow at the rate we know
from the 20th cad, what were the causes?
>Logic would surely dictate the lower end of estimates for all these
[I associate "logic" with formal, strict arguments, which is not the
case. I'd prefer something like "reason".]
Why? The material evidence doesn't suggest stagnant societies. It
suggests cycles of expansions followed by destructions or
"I have water at 50C" is correct both for me having a glass of water
at 50C and for me having two glasses, one with ice sludge and the
other with boiling water. The statement is statistically correct in
both cases, but it is misleading in the second case. I find
statements of "population per archeological period" to be similarly misleading.
[100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]
Ariel L. Szczupak
AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203