CHAPTER 6 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SETTLEMENT POPULATION IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
There are several techniques that archaeologists use to estimate demographic settlement data in an ancient context, summarized below, but many of these techniques would not yield accurate estimates or are not suitable for a demographic study of Canaan during the Late Bronze Age. According to the methodology proposed by the author, the use of specific data from archaeological material relating to house size, family size, site size, and residential percentage can be used to estimate individual settlement population for ancient Canaan. However, when only fragmentary data for a particular area or site within Canaan is available due to lack of excavations, surveys, data from ancient texts, or relevant nomadic studies, other options exist. These alterative options include ancient topographical lists or other ancient references to cities occupied in the Late Bronze Age, regional averages for residential site percentage from the time period, and nomadic regional population densities derived from the study of nomads in similar technological and geographical spheres.
POPULATION ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES USED FOR THE ANCIENT WORLD
Population density and total population in Late Bronze Age Canaan are prime focuses of this demographic study, and the two are intertwined in the context of a defined region. In demographic archaeology, the two basic approaches for calculating population estimates involve using either settlement data or carrying capacity; within these two basic methods are several different approaches. It has been demonstrated that population estimates derived from settlement data, when available, are the most accurate for the ancient world (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 460-461). A prevalent technique for determining the approximate population of an ancient city or region, seen in multiple studies of the ancient Levant, is to multiply the total inhabited area by an estimated population density coefficient (e.g. Finkelstein 1996: 244; Ilan 1995: 305; Bunimovitz 1989: 152; Broshi and Gophna 1986: 74; Shiloh 1980: 26). Conducting a surface survey of ceramics to establish occupation and a density coefficient from the frequency of sherds is another method, although imprecise, sometimes used to calculate total population of a site or area. Other techniques propose estimations based on a regional level survey instead of the micro level or more precise individual settlement calculations, which tend to not be utilized in calculating regional totals for large areas.
Ceramic Survey Technique
The ceramic survey technique has been used to confirm occupation in a particular period and to estimate hypothetical site population density in the area of the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically in ancient Greece; it involves intensive survey based on the distribution and density of ceramics at the site (Bintliff and Sbonias 1999: 1). This would be useful for determining Late Bronze Age occupation in sections of Canaan where no excavation has been carried out, but is unnecessary for sites that have been excavated. However, drawing further conclusions from this method must be avoided, as the relation of ceramic data to population varies from region to region, as well as does the intensity of each survey, thus making it unreliable to draw specific and direct correlations between regions such as Greece and Canaan (Bintliff and Sbonias 1999: 2-3). Further, the data from this method is far too imprecise for many applications and should not be used when much better data is often available. This technique is satisfactory only when dealing with a high number of sites over a large area, but the data it provides is broad and non-specific, too often based only on theory rather than hard archaeological data. It may still serve, however, in a secondary role to techniques which provide more meticulous data and methodology in evaluating ancient texts describing relevant aspects of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. This is due to the increased availability of excavated sites and cemeteries in Canaan, along with data from Late Bronze Age texts. Also, an intensive single site version of this survey technique can be used to determine the approximate Late Bronze Age occupational extent of a multi-period site for situations in which excavation data is sparse or insufficient. Therefore, the methodology that this current study suggests is most useful for obtaining precise demographic data for Late Bronze Age Canaan includes population density and totals from house and family data, analysis of settlements and their use of space, the factoring of a nomadic population element in the region, and the use of relevant ancient texts.
Carrying Capacity as a Means of Population Estimation
A much different method used to estimate population involves the carrying capacity or agricultural output of an area to determine the total sedentary population that could be supported. It has been estimated that Dynastic Egypt produced about 679 kg of grain per acre, which using Hassan’s equation and Butzer’s total of arable land in Old Kingdom times would amount to a population support number of about 1.4 million on agriculture alone—a figure adjusted for reseeding and storage loss (Hassan 1981: 45). This figure seems agreeable to the various other estimates, especially factoring in the use of domesticated animals for food sources, and possibly even imports.
Part of estimating population based on agricultural data includes the calculation of cattle or other animals to determine the possible number of people that this animal food supply could support. In a study of an East African cattle herding group called the Karimojoong, it was demonstrated that a herd of 100 cattle can support 8.44 persons per year. Though the Karimojoong only partly relied on cattle for nourishment, at an estimated 34%, it was an additional food source for the population that can be hypothetically quantified and related to total population support (Hassan 1981: 48). It is known that the Egyptians maintained herds of cattle at this time, and also that at least during certain periods officials took a cattle census approximately every two years. Unfortunately, the actual numeric data is sparse, and possibly incorrect as well. However, on the South Saqqara Stone in Merenra’s section there are some apparently readable numbers related to the cattle census and counts of other animals, and the numbers 107,434 and 1,007,287 relate to cattle (Baud and Dobrev 1995:41). The sum of these cattle numbers used in Hassan’s equation would support approximately 94,000 people. There were other animals the ancient Egyptians raised for food, but this is simply an example which demonstrates a slightly larger population number than that calculated purely by cultivatable land support, allowing a hypothesis of near 2 million in the more rural Old Kingdom period to be plausible. According to a hypothetical demographic table constructed by Butzer, the population of Dynastic Egypt in the area of the Nile would have been between approximately 1.93 million, based on square kilometers of arable land in the Nile floodplain (16,100) and estimated population densities (120 per square kilometer), which is based on the agricultural output calculated by Baer (Butzer 1976: 83). Adding the population support of the animals, and the number easily increases to over 2 million. Butzer’s figures rely upon the use of artificial irrigation and “sluice gates” established by the time of the First Dynasty (Butzer 1976: 107). In contrast to this figure, the estimates of population density for a foraging society in Egypt before the shift to agriculture is placed at 30 persons per square kilometer of foraging land, equating to an approximate forager population of 483,000 for the entire country (Allen 1997: 145). Using this carrying capacity methodology based on agricultural output and land under cultivation, Baer estimated a total ancient Egyptian population of approximately 4.5 million at the beginning of the 19th Dynasty—roughly equivalent to the time of Late Bronze Age II in Canaan (Baer 1963: 42-44).68 According to environmental data compiled and interpreted by Butzer, the modern Nile floodplain has existed in its essentials since the Old Kingdom (Butzer 1976: 28). Also, state formation occurred much more rapidly in Egypt than in other areas of the ancient Near East, even though the Nile Valley was “underpopulated” at the time of the creation of the Egyptian state, the unification period (Allen 1997: 135). In addition to these trends at the beginning of the Old Kingdom, the depopulation of the desert frontiers due to a drier cycle which began in 3400 BCE reached its modern, arid condition by 2500 BCE, forced the population into the Nile Valley (Allen 1997: 147). Butzer specifically links the abandonment of several of these desert-margin settlements following the Old Kingdom period to this decreased rainfall (Butzer 1976: 39). This suggests that demographic data for ancient Egypt can be fairly consistent and thus somewhat predictable from the Roman period back to the beginning of the Old Kingdom.
Unfortunately, to apply the same assumptions and methodology to Canaan would be unreliable because of the wide variances in climate and topography, and the differences in settlement practices and culture during various periods, which would result in highly inaccurate figures for Late Bronze Canaan. Agricultural output in Canaan could, however, be used for comparative analysis. According to a survey of what was Western Palestine under the British Mandate in the early 20th century, there were approximately 9,000 square kilometers of land in the area suitable for cultivation (Shaw 1946: 566).69 In hectares, Western Palestine encompassed approximately 2.6 million hectares, but according to examination there were only 0.937 million hectares (9,370 square kilometers) of cultivatable in the British Mandate period, or 36% of the total land (Reifenberg 1947: 158-159). Using this relatively modern sum of cultivatable land, and recognizing that it encompasses slightly less than the area of Late Bronze Age Canaan, according to proposed equations for ancient Egypt a maximum agricultural support for ancient times in Canaan under similar conditions would have exceeded 1 million, or a maximum forager population perhaps around 300,000 (Butzer 1976: 83; Allen 1997: 145). One can see the obvious difference in total population estimates between Egypt and Canaan of the same period, but these numbers only serve as a general comparison to show that Canaan in the Late Bronze Age would have had a substantially smaller maximum potential population than Egypt of the same period—perhaps somewhere near 20% of the population of Egypt.70 However, this method is imprecise, fraught with problems, and is useful only in postulating a theoretical upper limit for the population of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Further, the approach of estimating ancient populations through carrying capacity has been critiqued as an invalid method (Hayden 1975: 11-16). It is nearly impossible to calculate the amount of food in an area useable by a group, because the calculation of potential foods available to technologies is elusive and uncertain, and the cyclical nature of the resource environment lacks data and is hypothetical at best (Hayden 1975: 12). Further, attempting to calculate population based on water resources must make assumptions both about all known and useable water sources, the nature of their use, and the amount used per person—including people of different sizes, ages, health status, metabolism, and requirements from lifestyle. Because of the consistency of the flooding of the Nile River and its prominent role in agriculture, carrying capacity estimates derived from Nile flooding and the agriculture allowed by this flooding system may be roughly plausible. However, in ancient Canaan no equitable system existed. Instead, a more detailed and specific methodology related to household population and settlement sizes based on data from sites in Late Bronze Age Canaan will be developed and utilized to yield much more accurate results.
Ancient Census Lists and Estimating Population
Ancient census lists are useful for calculating ancient populations or for comparative studies between ancient civilizations that may give insight into a particular civilization, such as Canaan, that does not have formal census lists. However, census lists from various time periods in Egypt may be useful in comparative studies to test whether or not Canaan may correlate to other ancient cultures in population density or the consistency of population increase over time. In late antiquity, Josephus claimed 7.5 million inhabitants in Roman Egypt, excluding Alexandria, based on poll tax numbers; Butzer, and Baines and Eyre, agree that Diodorus gives a figure of 7 million for the total population of Egypt in the early Ptolemaic Period (Butzer 1999: 251).71 A census from an earlier Egyptian period allows for the placement of a second population estimate on the timeline of ancient Egypt. Frank Yurco’s study of the census taken by Narmer coincides with an Old Kingdom population exceeding 2 million. Narmer’s census shows 120,000 males in the Delta, which would yield a population of 480,000 to 600,000 if each is allotted one wife and two to three children on average. Since it is believed that Upper Egypt had a slightly higher population, Yurco has estimated Upper Egypt at 600,000 to 800,000, giving a total population between approximately 1.1 and 1.4 million during the First Dynasty (Yurco 1995: 88-90). According to settlement, agricultural, and census data, the population of Egypt slightly later and in a more developed period, at the height of the Old Kingdom, may have approached or even exceeded 2 million.
However, rather than a steady increase in population throughout Dynastic Egypt, there were several factors leading to decreases in population to take into account between the end of the Old Kingdom and the Roman period. Charting population growth and taking into account the disasters of the 1st and 2nd Intermediate Periods, a total population for Egypt during the Late Bronze Age can be hypothesized at about 4 to 4.5 million. Because of a probable decline in the total population during the extreme drought and famine at the end of the Old Kingdom and beginning of the First Intermediate Period, the high flood disasters of the twelfth and thirteenth Dynasties, the Second Intermediate Period, the Hyksos domination and expulsion, the decentralization of the Third Intermediate Period, and various other known and unknown factors, the population numbers may be slightly higher in the Old Kingdom than what would be expected by direct extrapolation from Roman times (Butzer 1976: 28-29; Butzer 1999: 251). Fagan specifically notes one of these population decreasing disasters recorded in the tomb of Ankhtifi, that in the period of ca. 2180-2160 BCE, massive droughts in Upper Egypt caused famine, eventually leading to political disorder in ancient Egypt (Fagan 1999: 99). This resulted in premature death, starvation, a decline in birth rates, looting, and of course decreased agricultural output on a massive scale, leading directly to a large overall population decrease (Fagan 1999: 100). Besides the massive famines and disasters sometime after the fall of the Old Kingdom written about by Ankhtifi and Ipuwer, and the troubles and war of the Hyksos period, the Third Intermediate Period was decentralized, producing very few administrative documents, and arguably coinciding with a decrease in population (Baines and Eyre 1983: 67). Instead of a uniform growth rate from the Old Kingdom to Roman times, all of these events would logically contribute to a reduction in the expected total population by the time of the census taken by Josephus. This is likely also the picture one would find of the region encompassed by Canaan between the Early Bronze Age and the Byzantine period if census lists were available, or by looking at various estimates through archaeology.
For the general geographical area of Canaan, there have been a variety of population estimates from numerous time periods, including, like Egypt, census figures from the Roman period recorded in the writings of Josephus. Based on Josephus, Byatt argued that Roman Judaea Province had a population of 2,265,000 in the 1st century CE (Byatt 1973: 51). However, this number is questioned or rejected by several scholars due to its appearance as grossly inflated. Even if accepting this population total for the Roman Period, there are problems of correlation with Late Bronze Age Canaan due to difference in regional boundaries, technology, architecture, and culture.
Additionally, events in the southern Levant from the Late Bronze Age to the Roman period would prohibit a uniform population increase. According to various estimates covering the area of the modern state of Israel (not the entirety of ancient Canaan), there was a population of 150,000 for cities or towns of the Early Bronze II-III, a decrease at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age and a resurgence to either 140,000 for the cities or towns and 200,000 for the total population at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, estimates of around 50,000 to 100,000 for cities or towns of the Late Bronze Age, 150,000 for the cities or towns of the Iron Age, and in the Roman and Byzantine period a low end population of about one million (Broshi and Gophna 1984: 43, 50; Broshi and Gophna 1986: 87; Ilan 1995: 305; Bunimovitz 1989:152; Finkelstein 1996: 244; Shiloh 1980: 33; Broshi 1979: 6-7). Even if these estimates are in error due to methodology, they still demonstrate that population fluctuations occurred over time according to archaeological and textual data. Thus, a constant increasing population slope cannot be reliably used between distant known population points in time to discover unknown population points in time. Data restricted to the Late Bronze Age is necessary in order to determine an accurate population estimate. Still, none of the above estimates are known populations in time, nor were any done at a micro level or with the use of ancient textual data. With no Nile, generally smaller cities, less centralized infrastructure, and societal disruptions, Late Bronze Age Canaan, even with similar livable land area, likely would have had a substantially smaller population than Egypt in the New Kingdom. That total population number can only be accurately estimated by examining each settlement in detail, using a formula specifically crafted for Late Bronze Age Canaan, and adding in an estimated nomadic population based on previous studies of nomadic populations in similar technological and climatic spheres. Fortunately, a type of census information does exist for Canaan though, in the form of family information that can be used in conjunction with archaeological data.
Population Density Coefficient
The density of 250 persons per hectare, or sometimes 200 persons per hectare, is derived on analogy with pre-modern Muslim settlements, primarily from the Late Ottoman period in the Levant, where it is assumed that habitation patterns in the past did not change much until the 20th century (Zorn 1994: 32). However, there is very little in common between Muslim settlements of the 19th century and settlements of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Not only are these settlements separated by almost 3,500 years, but the technology, culture, religion, architecture, and ethnicity are all different; a direct comparison is invalid because the adaptation is entirely different. Thus, in order to accurately assess the population of settlements in Late Bronze Age Canaan, a methodology specific to that period and region must be derived from micro studies and data specifically related to the relevant time and place.
Broad application of uniform population density coefficients have often been employed in estimating ancient population data. Baer estimated a rural population density of 184 people per square kilometer in the Nile floodplain for the entire period of Dynastic Egypt, and a slightly higher 225 per square kilometer estimated for ancient Greece of the same time period (Bintliff and Sbonias 1999: 8). This number, when multiplied by the estimated square kilometers of inhabited land in the boundaries of ancient Egypt, yields an approximate maximum rural population of 1.5 million people for Dynastic Egypt, excepting the major towns and cities—the total population including urban areas would be higher (Butzer 1976: 77). Adding estimates for the population of major cities and towns, resulting in a larger total, would vary based upon the urbanization level of the culture and the typical population density at a particular point in time. Uphill, using the same basic technique but applying it to towns and cities, generally uses a number of 250 people per acre (617.5 per hectare) or 250 per 0.4 hectares (625 per hectare) in a town for ancient Egypt (Uphill 1988: 15). This is only used for calculating urban or suburban populations, and is not applicable to calculating any possible nomadic population. According to Butzer’s calculations, with an estimated population density of the ancient city of Memphis at 550 per hectare, urban Memphis during its peak in the Old Kingdom had a total population of approximately 17,050 people (Butzer 1976: 102). Butzer’s estimate of Per Ramesses in New Kingdom times, the same period as the Late Bronze Age, puts the population of the city at 100,000 (Butzer 1999: 250). New Kingdom Per Ramesses according to this estimate reached 350 hectares, although after subsequent excavation Bietak later estimated the size at up to 600 hectares—substantially larger than any site in Late Bronze Canaan, and indicative that no city during this period in Canaan would have matched or exceeded its estimated population (Bietak 2010: 12; Butzer 1999: 250). Even though New Kingdom Egypt coincides with Late Bronze Age Canaan in time, is a geographical neighbor, and had a similar technology level, these population density coefficients cannot be directly implemented into Canaan of the Late Bronze Age because Canaan had a culture, geography, and architectural tradition distinct from Egypt. Constructions of New Kingdom cities such as Akhetaten and Per Ramesses and the sheer size of their metropolitan areas suggests a population increase and a move to more urbanized culture during this period (Uphill 1988: 60, 62). Similar trends may have occurred in Canaan beginning in the Middle Bronze Age and initially flowed into the Late Bronze Age before settlement change occurred. The increased urbanization of New Kingdom Egypt makes accurately estimating town and city populations important for demographic estimates of Egypt in this period. The emphasis on towns and cities is also applicable to Canaan during the Late Bronze Age, since the many towns and cities discovered archaeologically, in addition to the Amarna correspondence, indicate that a major segment of the population was settled in towns and cities during this period.
Past studies of ancient Canaan have used a uniform density coefficient. The primary problematic aspect of previous Canaan population studies is the assignment of an all-encompassing density coefficient multiplied by total site area. The studies start with the flawed premise that a density coefficient of 200 or 250 people per hectare is correct, when in fact this figure is based primarily upon a study of modern villages in Iran (Broshi and Gophna 1986: 73-74; Finkelstein 1996: 244). This practice is due to convenience and availability of data, but there are obvious problems with such a simplified view of ancient population density. Interestingly, a study on old quarters of Middle Eastern cities, specifically Iraq, demonstrates a density coefficient of around 450 people per hectare (Adams 1981: 350). The building density of old quarters of cities would probably be more similar to building density of ancient cities than modern village density; the old quarters database is a closer comparison than modern village density calculation. Still, broad modern ethnographic data should not be used in place of specific ancient data.
The results of studies utilizing a 200 to 250 people per hectare constant were done employing a very generalized population density coefficient derived from studies of villages and sections of cities not yet modernized in the Middle East in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries rather than data specifically from Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, or other ancient periods, should be considered inaccurate due to invalid correlation (Broshi and Gophna 1986: 74; Shiloh 1980: 26; Adams 1981: 349-50; Kramer 1980: 322-27; Postgate 1994: 51). Finkelstein suggested correlating the household population trends of Muslim villagers living in British Mandate Palestine directly back onto Bronze Age Canaan by arguing that this proposed ethnographic parallel indicated a household of approximately 4 or more people for the Bronze Age as well as British Mandate Palestine villages (Finkelstein 1990: 49). This drastically affects the population density coefficient estimate by making it substantially lower than calculations using a higher per household or per family population. The primary flaw, as seen in other studies, is that all of the household population and settlement density coefficient estimates used are derived from studies of modern and primarily Islamic populations (Finkelstein 1990: 48-50). It is acknowledged, yet not utilized, that a population density coefficient for ancient settlements “based on data from some Middle Eastern towns in recent generations…cannot be applied to the study of historical demography” (Finkelstein 1990: 50). Unfortunately, this astute observation that data from later, unrelated periods and cultures should not be projected onto an ancient culture is not carried through in the majority of previously utilized methodologies for estimating settlement populations in the ancient Levant, or even other regions of the ancient world.
While useful for comparative analysis, data from the modern period is not the most precise basis for making demographic calculations in a specific region during the Late Bronze Age. Although a figure of around 200 people per hectare is used for the above studies, based on 18th to 20th century Middle Eastern villages, a population density study of an ancient Sumerian city yielded a range of between approximately 250 and 1200 people per hectare and was based on a detailed analysis of dwelling space at the ancient site to determine possible density coefficients rather than beginning with an assumed premise (Postgate 1994: 62). Postgate, the archaeologist who conducted the study, leans more towards a figure of around 450 people per hectare, perhaps influenced by the Adams study in modern era Iraq (although allowing for the possibility of a higher density) because of the amount of dwelling space per person that this figure allows—about 10 square meters—although this 10 square meters of dwelling space per person is on the high end of the scale for dwelling space studies which demonstrate a worldwide constant between approximately 4.7 and 7.5 square meters through more recent studies (Postgate 1994: 63; Brown 1987:1-49). Thus, the population density was likely even higher than the conservatively preferred estimate of 450 people per hectare. Uphill uses a population density coefficient of about 625 per hectare in towns of ancient Egypt, while Butzer uses a population density of 550 per hectare for an Old Kingdom city in Egypt (Uphill 1988: 15; Butzer 1976: 102). From a detailed study of house size and residential area, Zorn determined a density coefficient of between 470 and 590 people per hectare at Iron Age Nasbeh (Zorn 1994: 44). Compared to the figures referenced previously for estimates of 200 to 250 people per hectare in Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age Canaan, a density of 450 to 600 or more people per hectare appears extremely high. However, it is important to note that the higher figures are at least partially derived from ancient data rather than modern data, and therefore are much more realistic. This indicates that the 200 to 250 people per hectare coefficients are far too low for use in Late Bronze Age Canaan, and thus would give both specific site populations and overall region populations far lower than reality. Still, a general population density for Canaan in the Late Bronze Age must not simply be assumed based upon previous studies, but based upon archaeological and textual data restricted to the period and region, and further applied on a site to site basis.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION
1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY
1.4 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW: PREVIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES
1.6 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE
1.7 THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF CANAAN DEFINED
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER 2: BOUNDARIES OF CANAAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE
2.3 THE VIEW OF GEOGRAPHICAL CANAAN IN SCHOLARSHIP
2.4 PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
CHAPTER 3: HOUSE SIZE IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
3.2 AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
3.3 THE MULTI-STORY HOUSE IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
3.4 HOUSE TYPES AT LATE BRONZE AGE EMAR
3.5 VARIABILITY IN “HOUSE” SIZES IN CANAAN AND HOUSING COMPLEXES
3.6 DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN CANAAN FROM THE HEBREW BIBLE
3.7 RESIDENCES OF PRIESTS AND OFFICIALS
3.8 CONCLUSION ABOUT HOUSE SIZE
CHAPTER 4: FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
4.2 DOMESTIC SLAVES IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
4.3 FAMILY SIZE IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN FROM ANCIENT TEXTS
4.4 GARRISON SIZE
4.5 PRIESTS AND TEMPLE “HOUSEHOLD” POPULATION
CHAPTER 5: LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SEX RATIO IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SEX RATIO FOR CANAAN
5.2 LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SEX RATIO METHODOLOGY
5.3 RELEVANT COMPARATIVE STUDIES FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD
5.4 DIFFICULTIES IN ANALYZING AND OBTAINING BURIAL DATA
5.5 LIFE EXPECTANCY AND SEX RATIO DATA FROM CANAAN
5.6 ANCIENT TEXTUAL DATA RELATING TO LIFE EXPECTANCY
5.7 COLLECTIVE DATA FROM CANAAN
5.8 COMPARATIVE DATA FROM THE MODERN WORLD
CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SETTLEMENT POPULATION IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
6.2 POPULATION ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES USED FOR THE ANCIENT WORLD
6.3 METHODOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES DERIVED FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
6.4 NEW COMPREHENSIVE METHOD FOR ESTIMATING ANCIENT POPULATION
6.5 TEXTUAL INDICATORS OF POPULATION IN LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
6.6 EXAMPLE SETTLEMENTS OF CANAAN
6.7 TEST CASE CITY
CHAPTER 7: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE NOMADIC POPULATION OF CANAAN
7.1 THE NOMADIC POPULATION OF CANAAN IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE
7.2 CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT, AND GEOGRAPHY
7.3 SIZE OF NOMADIC FAMILIES AND GROUPS
7.4 OVERALL NOMADIC POPULATION DENSITIES FROM VARIOUS REGIONS
7.5 POPULATION DENSITIES OF GEOGRAPHIC REGION TYPES
7.6 POPULATION DENSITIES FOR NOMADIC REGIONS OF CANAAN
CHAPTER 8: CATALOG OF LATE BRONZE AGE SITES IN CANAAN
8.2 LATE BRONZE AGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN CANAAN
8.3 SETTLEMENTS IN CANAAN FROM LATE BRONZE AGE DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 9: SETTLEMENTS OF LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN AND THEIR ESTIMATED POPULATIONS
9.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE SETTLEMENT LIST
9.2 SETTLEMENT LIST AND POPULATION ESTIMATES
9.3 SETTLEMENT POPULATION CONCLUSIONS AND TOTALS
CHAPTER 10: A NOMADIC POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
10.1 COASTAL REGION NOMADIC POPULATION ESTIMATE
10.2 VALLEY/PLAIN REGION NOMADIC POPULATION ESTIMATE
10.3 DESERT/ARID REGION NOMADIC POPULATION ESTIMATE
10.4 HIGHLAND/MOUNTAINOUS REGION POPULATION ESTIMATE
10.5 TOTAL LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN NOMADIC POPULATION ESTIMATE
CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSION
11.1 SUMMATION OF THE DATA
11.2 GENERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
11.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
11.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR LATE BRONZE AGE CANAAN
11.5 FUTURE RESEARCH
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT