Re: [XTalk] Re: The Historical Nazareth
- At 09:06 PM 12/31/00 -0800, Weasel wrote:
>At 22:02 12/31/2000 +0000, Teresa wrote:This used to be a specialty of mine, and I agree with "Weasel" that 4000 is
>Many thanks for this information I have two comments though.
> > Reed notes that first century Nazareth
> >"was much more modest and simple, and agricultural, and was confined
> >to an area of around 4 hectares", and the size of the site suggests
> >a population of less than 4000 people, according to James F. Stange.
>Much less than 4000, a number of 100 to 300 would appear more reasonable.
way too high. Population densities of 1000 per hectare might be found in
some contemporary urban centers, but not in an agricultural village. I
wouldn't argue with the estimate of 100 to 300, but that might be a little
Fortunately, I now see that Teresa has corrected her typo: 400 is certainly
a reasonable estimate.
> >Little first century material culture has been found, mostly limitedUsually the dating is done on the basis of trash (e.g., broken pottery)
> >to subterranean cisterns, storage bins and caves because of overlying
> >later Christian constructions.
>Does Reed explain how this material was dated? This material is inorganic
>so C14 dating is out.
found in the bottom of the features.
>----------It is my impression that psuedonyms are not appropriate on this list.
Please identify yourself properly.
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]