Publicaciones específicas sobre videojuegos

In order to arrive at a total population estimate for the entire region of Canaan, the population for all known settlement sites will be added together then supplemented with an estimate for the nomadic population in the remaining areas of the region not covered by permanent settlements. A nomadic culture may be broadly defined as a mobile group that does not participate in or does not emphasize agricultural cultivation and is a type of lifestyle often associated with hunter-gatherer or nomadic pastoralist societies (Khazanov 2009: 119-120). The word “nomad” originally comes from Greek νομαδικός [nomadikos], and was associated with a herdsman’s life, pastoral, roving, and wandering (Liddell and Scott 1996: 1178).

Beginning in the previous period, the Middle Bronze Age, there are texts which appear to describe the existence of “extraurban” people, or even a nomadic segment of society in Canaan and the nearby regions (Rosen 1992: 81; Broshi and Gophna 1986:

74). The Amarna Letters and 18^th Dynasty Egyptian texts repeatedly mention nomadic people such as shasu, sutu, and in some cases possibly ‘apiru, living in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age; shasu is interpreted as a general term for nomadic groups on the peripheral areas of Canaan, while sutu is the equivalent generic Akkadian term for nomad (Levy 2009: 157; Na’aman 2005: 91).⁸³ It is acknowledged that archaeologically these groups are difficult to trace, as most “evidence for enclosed nomadism in the southern Levant is textual. References to groups such as the Apiru…a social or class designation, and the Shasu, either a class designation or an ethnic attribution,” are viewed as the nomads of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (Rosen 2009: 64). The shasu are even referred to as tent-dwellers in Papyrus Harris I, 76: 9-10, which further suggests the possibility of a mobile lifestyle (Redford 1992: 278; Giveon 1971: 135).

83 ‘apiru is normally viewed as a socioeconomic class term rather than an ethnic term, while shasu and sutu mean nomad. While Ward proposes that the shasu were a social class that included nomadic, Bedouin, and urban people instead of strictly wanderers or nomads, other scholars do not concur and the evidence for this proposal is lacking (Ward 1972: 56).

Because of the various textual references, the term most frequently used, shasu, known from Egyptian sources of the 18^th Dynasty through the Third Intermediate Period, is typically interpreted as referring to a social group of nomads in the southern Levant (Levy, Adams, and Muniz 2004: 65-66). A common understanding of the period proposes that “the Egyptian military record warrant[s] the assumption that significant numbers of shasu pastoralists ranged LBA Canaan. Direct archaeological data is harder to come by” (Hopkins 1993: 210). Mention of 15,200 living shasu nomads and 3,600

‘apiru (who may or may not have been nomads due to the scope of this socioeconomic term) in the Memphis Stele of Amenhotep II as captives suggests a number in the tens of thousands for the total nomadic population of Late Bronze Age Canaan (Hallo and Younger 2000: 22). Regardless of the complete reliability of the stele in either accuracy of the numbers or truth of the capture, the large numbers mentioned do indicate a substantial population of nomads. Further, because nomads are mentioned often in texts from the period, especially in 18^th and 19^th Dynasty military texts, they likely made up a noticeable portion of the regional population of Canaan (e.g. Breasted 1906a: 211;

Breasted 1906b: 46, 53, 144). This suggests that the total nomadic population numbered well over 10,000 during the Late Bronze Age. The opposite view proposes that “there had been few, if any, pure pastoral nomads in the Near East until the first millennium B.C.” due to the hypothesis that most had to supplement domesticated animals with cultivation and that pack animals would have been required (Khazanov 2009: 124). However, these requirements for a strictly pastoral type of nomadic culture in the Late Bronze Age, not a hunter-gatherer or hybrid nomadic culture, are only true if pack animals such as camels or donkeys were not domesticated, or if traveling long distances with heavy possessions was necessary, or if food was not supplemented by gathering of wild produce. Nomadism, both of the pastoral type and the hunter-gather type, was at least possible in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Further, since texts of the period do indicate mobile groups, some which clearly had domesticated animals and some which used tents, the presence of nomads in the region appears not only plausible but very likely. Because, according to several ancient sources, a nomadic population was present in the region, and additionally the presence of nomads in Canaan is logical and plausible, this segment of the population must be factored into a

demographic study of the region and into the overall figure for the region during the Late Bronze Age.

Binford plots the population density of hunter-gatherer groups, ranging to a maximum of 3 people per square kilometer (Binford 2001: 425-426). After surpassing this population density, population pressure would force either migration, population reduction, or transfer into a more sedentary society that would allow higher densities.

According to this data, nomadic population density in Late Bronze Age Canaan should have been under 3 people per square kilometer, even in the most fertile and highly dense regions.⁸⁴ Comparative ethnographic data from multiple regions of the world is analyzed in the following discussion to calculate estimates for population densities of specific nomadic regions of Canaan.

Unfortunately, because of their lifestyle, the archaeological data for the nomadic groups of the Late Bronze Age is scarce and difficult to locate or discern. Some have argued that most of the evidence for nomads is not preserved in the archaeological record, as supposedly demonstrated by the example of the lack of material remains of Bedouin in the southern Levant during the 19^th century (Finkelstein and Perevolotsky 1990: 67). However, it has been demonstrated that nomadic sites, both hunter-gatherer or pastoral nomads, and even the Bedouin, leave traceable but limited remains—small sites often less than 20 m2 and only a few pottery sherds or lithic artifacts, and perhaps a hearth (Rosen 1992: 75, 80-81). Yet, it is recognized that these types of sites could be easily missed due to their small size, lack of significant architectural remains, coverage by vegetation, and destruction by later settlements (Rosen 1992: 76). Excluding the extremely harsh or arid regions where little vegetation grows and fewer settlements are built over time, locating and identifying these sites can be very difficult and highly unlikely, especially when one factors the techniques typically used to survey for sites or choose a site for excavation in more fertile and densely settled areas. Thus, archaeological material left behind by nomads exists, but it can be extremely difficult to locate and trace these groups archaeologically, especially in more settled regions.

84 Although theoretically possible, it is unlikely that the nomadic population density in Canaan reached the maximum of 3 people per km2, especially in the Late Bronze Age. Because of the presence of settlements

throughout ancient times, the region as a whole does not appear to have ever been an area only occupied by nomads.

Thus, the nomadic population density was likely much lower than 3 people per km2.

For Canaan, it has been hypothesized that the combined period of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages saw “the rise of enclosed nomadism…wherein tribal groups lived in the interstices between the urban sites, with seasonal migrations beyond the settled zone” (Rosen 2009: 63).

Thus, it is necessary to use comparative data for an estimate. Further, because of the lack of archaeological data from nomadic groups of Late Bronze Age Canaan and the absence of specific censuses or other detailed population data about nomads in the region from ancient texts of the period, ethnographic parallels must be used. The population figure for the nomadic regions of Canaan will be primarily based upon studies of Native American Indian nomadic groups, Australian aboriginal tribes, African hunter-gatherer groups, and foraging land capacity, which may have a highly fluctuating residential density depending on the land available and the size of the community population (Chamberlain 2006: 128; Allen 1997: 145). These nomadic hunter-gatherer groups have the best available demographic data that allows the estimation of nomadic population density for various types of geographical regions relevant to Canaan.