>I have some problems with your arguments. The data appears
>sound, but perhaps not as relevant as you might think. For the
>most part those peoples you noted as being in better shape
>than the postulated neolithics do not appear to have made
>significant expansions into other territories, which would
>have to be the case if you are using them to account for the
>population growth. It appears from my non-expert viewpoint
>that these cultures have actually not done as well growth-wise.
The problem I had with the assumption of neolithic population density for all of genertela was that many of the cultures were considerably more advanced than the neolithics (in particular Kralorela and Heortlings). Therefore they would have a higher population density than that of neolithic hunter/gatherers at the dawn thus reducing the need for alarming population growth (and it turns out the calculations were flawed).
Secondly the argument is not so much as concerned with expansion of empires but the increasing population density within certain areas.
Taking the top five cultural areas.
Kralorela: 11.1 million
Barbarian Belt: 6.5 million (includes Esrolia)
Peloria: 6.0 million
Safelster and Tanisor: 5.2 million
Loskalm: 3.2 million
----
32.0 million
This is roughly 60% of the total population of Genertela. Four out of five cultures live on lands that have been continously inhabited since the Dawn and have not relied on expansion to fuel their population numbers. The lands in which the majority of the population of those cultures dwell are lands in which they have lived since the Dawn.
>Also, you wrote off the decimated peoples as irrelevant. How so?
Jrustela is irrelevant to the population of Genertela since it lay overseas. Most of the Seshnegi were allegedly expelled from Seshnela before it was sunk by the Luatha (who left the oldest lands around Frowal and Laurmal unsunk). Slontos was already largely sunk at the Dawn and the historical sinking was not that large in terms of surface area.
Powered by hypermail