Aspectos éticos

A third relevant study of town and city population density in the ancient Near East was done with a focus on a Sumerian city in southern Mesopotamia called Tell Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1994: 47-65). While this study falls outside the specific region and period of Late Bronze Age Canaan, the methodology used in the study and the parallel information from an ancient settlement of the Near East is far more useful than a study focusing on modern era villages. The methods of “proportion of site area occupied by housing,” “correlation between house area and number of occupants,” and the average number of people per house were stressed and employed in a later study of the ancient Sumerian city of Tell Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1994: 53, 56, 58). The epigraphic data about persons per household greatly contributes to a more accurate estimate, as contemporary ancient sources can detail the approximate household population rather than using a hypothetical number based on modern ethnographic comparisons or guesses—a weakness based on an invalid assumption that ancient and modern settlements are essentially the same (Postgate 1994: 62; Kolb 1985: 592-93). If the measurements for a single house are known at any given site or an average in a particular region, this additional information can be used to determine the approximate number of households at a site, and thus the approximate total population. Because two of the most variable factors between sites may be the size of a particular house and density of houses, specific site data, comparisons between sites, and the number of people per household are all essential to an accurate study (Postgate 1994: 58).

Two of the most important factors in determining the population of a settlement (or region) are 1) site size and 2) use of space (Postgate 1994:48). This is further refined by defining total residential space and the amount of space used by each person or household. Postgate defines site size as “the area occupied by a visible mound or by an artefactual debris, or by both,” but he also notes that the extent of the ancient settlement may have exceeded the site’s observable modern size due to a variety of natural causes such as erosion and flooding (Postgate 1994: 48-50). Add to this removal of building materials reused for later settlements, and parts of a city or village may have nearly disappeared from the archaeological record. Further, villages or

suburbs which were occupied for only a short period of time may not be detectable without extensive excavation (Postgate 1994: 50). This suggests that sites mentioned in textual sources but “missing” in the archaeological record may not have been discovered or detected due to short occupation, covering from erosion or flooding, or the removal of building materials for reuse in a later, nearby settlement. Additionally, even if an area is surveyed, ceramic survey of a site or region may not detect all of the time periods represented at the site. This has been an issue specifically for the Late Bronze Age. In Jordan, results from excavations have shown that there was Late Bronze Age occupation at many sites that did not show Late Bronze Age material from surveys. Thus, “although survey techniques are now much advanced since the days of Glueck, it seems that we still have to be careful about the conclusions we draw from them” (Van der Steen 2004: 90). These findings apply to all of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, and demonstrate that there may be Late Bronze Age strata at additional sites which have been surveyed but not yet excavated, or have been excavated but not to the level where a Late Bronze Age occupation would be. The lack of material found in surveys also suggests that many of the ancient sites may have encompassed more area than is detectable through survey or selective probe excavation. While some sites are surely missing Late Bronze Age strata on the archaeological record, only those missing sites that are named in ancient textual sources of the period should be factored into the overall population figure, rather than assigning an arbitrary percentage for the number of estimated additional sites. An estimate of an additional 20% of settlement area was used for missing sites for a study in of the Middle Bronze Age, but rather than guessing about the total area encompassed by missing sites, undiscovered sites named in ancient textual sources will be the only considered addition to total settlement area (Broshi and Gophna 1986: 73).

One of the aforementioned keys to refining the population density for settlements of Late Bronze Age Canaan is to demonstrate an average number of people per household from textual sources and an average house size from archaeological sources. Only this will give the most accurate population density figures for the particular region and time period. An additional problem with applying a static density coefficient to every site is pointed out—population density may have varied slightly with

site size or even from site to site (Postgate 1994: 51; Kramer 1980: 324-25). This phenomenon can be easily observed within modern cities, even from the same region and culture. Thus, as much as is possible, average house size and distribution should be analyzed on a site by site basis within Late Bronze Age Canaan. When this is impossible due to lack of data or excavation, use of a composite average would be the most effective method. Postgate notes that “instead of seeking a gross correlation of population to urban space, we can remove one element of possible distortion by tying the estimate of numbers of occupants more closely to the space they actually occupied—the houses where they slept, worked and ate—as opposed to the space they shared in public with other households—the streets, city wall and open spaces”

(Postgate 1994: 55-56).

Although about a 10% loss is attributed for streets and lanes in ancient Mesopotamia, estimating a general loss due to streets in Late Bronze Age Canaan should be done on a micro rather than a macro scale—street loss as part of a residential insula and in public areas (Postgate 1994: 56). According to a multi-site study, Late Bronze Age city streets in the southern Levant were on average 2 meters to 3 meters wide and bordered with continuous buildings (Wright 1965: 51, 55). According to further urban analysis, in Canaan there was usually one main street of 5 to 7 meters in width, a few other major streets 3 to 5 meters in width, and then the bulk of the smaller, residential streets were about 1 meter to 2 meters in width (Ben-Shlomo 2012:

Fig 5; Mazar and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 13; Yon and Callot 1997: 22; Baumgarten 1992:

150; Sellin and Watzinger 1913: Tafel IV). Garr factors in the residential sector of a city and also notes the loss of streets, alleys, open spaces, etc. when calculating living space (Garr 1987: 38). To account for the occasional wider street and avoid making sites denser than they may have been, an average street width of 2 meters will be used for residential areas, with one main street of 7 meters running the length of the settlement as part of the public space of a site. However, because many residential structures in settlements of Late Bronze Age Canaan were built up against the city wall or the bounds of the settlement, and inusalae inside the city would often have been situated next to other insulae with streets on only three or less sides, for the purposes of

calculating the total surface area occupied by an insula and its surrounding streets, an average 2 meter wide street will be placed on 3 sides of an insula rather than 4 sides.

Defining living space more specifically than a percentage of a site dedicated to residential buildings is another important factor in determining a more precise, albeit approximate total population figure. The subtraction of unused space such as walls, streets, and open areas will give a more precise figure for average space per person, which can be compared to previous studies and utilized for sites which have only been surveyed or insufficiently excavated (Postgate 1994: 53, 55; Broshi and Gophna 1986:86). This attention to the loss of living area due to streets and walls is essential for a more accurate population estimate. Although removing space used by large walls and streets from the equation may seem like a method that would only decrease a total population number, the relevant data for population density at a site is the number of people per household and the amount of living space per person. The issue of unused space or open public spaces in cities of Canaan is essential to understand for the accurate estimation of residential insulae and districts and their percentage within the overall site area. While cities of many other cultures throughout various historical periods sometimes had large portions of unused space within the city, this does not appear to be the case inside cities of Late Bronze Age Canaan. Instead, “excavation of Canaanite cities shows no open spaces within except the courtyards of palaces, mansions, and temples. The place of public concourse was about the gate, to a limited extend inside…but usually outside” (Daniel 1964: 60). The Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat from the Late Bronze Age mentions public gathering at the gate of the city, specifically in relation to the city leaders meeting and hearing cases of the residents (KTU 1.17:5:4-8;

Smith & Parker 1997: 58). Excavation of Late Bronze Age levels at cities such as Beth-Shean, Beth-Shemesh, Megiddo, Taanach, Tell el-Ajjul, and Tel Yin’am all demonstrate extreme building density for cities of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age and the use of closely packed insulae (Mazar and Mullins 2007: Fig 1.7; Liebowitz 2003: 3; Ussishkin 2000: Fig 5.17; Wright 1985: figures 59 and 60; Lapp 1969: 27; Petrie 1931: Plate LIV).

Thus, subtraction of large open or unused spaces in the residential sections of cities in Late Bronze Age Canaan is unnecessary and inaccurate according to the present

understanding of archaeological and textual data.⁷² While the religious and administrative districts appear to have had a relatively low population density, the residential districts of the cities may have had a very dense population, especially in walled or geographically bounded cities. Thus, instead of tending towards a lower total population, this newly proposed methodology may demonstrate a higher density and higher total population, while providing more realistic estimates because of the focus on time and period specific data.

One additional factor relating to residential dwelling space, overall house size, and population density must be noted for Late Bronze Age Canaan—the existence of two storey houses. This architectural trend allows the population density of a city to increase substantially while not consuming additional surface space within a city, thus altering the total population results drastically (Postgate 1994: 63). From excavations and recovered artifacts representing houses, there is ample reason to believe that many residences in the Late Bronze Age Levant, and Canaan in particular, were two storey buildings. The above studies and remarks suggest that the origin of the 200 to 250 per hectare figure is extremely arbitrary, anachronistic, and may be grossly in error; both density and total population may have been significantly higher.