Dense Worlds, Fragile Lives: Comparing Population, Diet, and Disease in the Maya Lowlands versus the Roman Heartland

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

This morning I was astounded when I read this news release by Archaeology Magazine saying new LiDAR studies reveal an estimated 16 million Maya may have occupied 36,700 square miles of the Maya Lowlands—an area that comprises parts of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize—during the Late Classic period (600–900 CE).

https://archaeology.org/news/2025/08/11/new-research-suggests-maya-population-may-have-topped-16-million/

In my paper, "Blood and Ash: Human sacrifice as a response to ecological catastrophe in the ancient Americas" I had compared juvenile mortality of Rome and the Maya then discussed sanitation issues and water management strategies of the two cultures to account for the difference between Rome's juvenile mortality of 30-35% and the Maya's at 35-50%. But, I did not explore differences in population density.

The central plaza of Teotihuacan on the left and Pompeii's forum on the right.
Extreme Densities, Different Worlds

Teotihuacan image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor MikHeil. Pompeii forum image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Commonists.

So, I asked ChatGPT to calculate the population density of 36,700 square miles of the Roman Empire using the city of Rome as the center. It found the Maya may have supported roughly six times the population of the Roman heartland—approximately 16 million versus 2.5 million. Despite Roman juvenile mortality being roughly 15% lower, the Maya’s ability to maintain relatively low mortality is remarkable given their extreme population density.

With ChatGPT's help I revisited the differences in juvenile mortality as revealed in indicators such as differences in trade networks, presence of epidemic pathogens and agricultural practices and diet:

Comparative Schematic: Maya Lowlands vs. Roman Heartland (~36,700 sq miles)

Feature	Maya Lowlands	Roman Heartland (~108 mi radius around Rome)	Notes / Impact
Population	~16,000,000	~2,500,000	Maya ~6× higher within same area
Population Density	~436 people/sq mile	~68 people/sq mile	Reflects intensive local agriculture + settlement clustering vs. more extensive Roman land use
Agricultural Productivity / Diet	Intensive maize-bean-squash polyculture; under ecological stress, supplemented with ramón nuts, cassava (manioc), Amaranthus cruentus (amaranth)	Extensive grain and pastoral farming; heavily reliant on imported wheat from Egypt, North Africa, and Sicily	Maya could sustain high density locally; Roman density dependent on long-distance supply chains; diet quality declined under droughts for Maya
Settlement Pattern	Core-periphery structure with dispersed compounds; elite separation	Urban centers (Rome) with dense insulae, surrounding villas and farmland	Stratification moderates mortality but doesn’t drive density
Sanitation / Water Management	Some elite cisterns with filtered water; generally minimal for non-elite populations	Aqueducts, sewers, public baths	Romans had systematic infrastructure reducing waterborne disease risk; Maya had localized mitigation but not widespread
Pathogen Exposure	Low; geographic isolation and limited trade networks minimized introduction of epidemic diseases	High; extensive long-distance trade (as far as China) introduced epidemic pathogens	Isolation helped Maya maintain dense populations with moderate mortality
Mortality (Juvenile/Infant)	35–50%	~30–35%	Despite lack of Roman-style infrastructure, isolation and localized water/nutrition strategies moderated mortality
Ecological Stress	Megadroughts, volcanic impact; diet deterioration under stress	Generally stable; some localized droughts or floods	Maya droughts periodically increased mortality and reduced diet quality

Despite comparable local population densities, the Maya Lowlands and the Roman heartland differed dramatically in both ecology and diet. Within a 36,700 sq mile area, the Maya may have supported roughly six times the population of the Roman heartland—approximately 16 million versus 2.5 million. This high Maya density was made possible by intensive agricultural practices, including terracing, raised fields, and maize-bean-squash polyculture, which produced a high-calorie, protein-adequate diet. In contrast, Roman populations relied heavily on cereal grains and, critically, on large-scale imports of wheat from Egypt, North Africa, and Sicily, leaving them vulnerable to supply disruptions.

Under ecological stress such as megadroughts or soil depletion, Maya diets deteriorated over time as they substituted drought-resistant but nutritionally inferior foods like ramón nuts, cassava (manioc), and Amaranthus cruentus (amaranth) for maize, resulting in lower protein intake, fewer essential amino acids, and reduced caloric density. 

Settlement patterns also played a role in moderating disease exposure: Maya cities featured core-periphery arrangements with dispersed residential compounds, while Roman urban centers had dense insulae and surrounding villas. 

Critically, the Maya were relatively isolated from Old World pathogens due to limited trade networks, whereas Rome’s far-reaching commerce—even extending as far as China—regularly introduced epidemic pathogens. 

Together, these factors help explain how the Maya sustained extreme local density with juvenile mortality estimated between 35–50%, only about 15% higher than the Roman heartland, despite lacking aqueducts and large-scale sanitation systems.

This comparison highlights how population density, trade networks, and ecological stress shaped ancient societies in ways that continue to inform our understanding of population resilience and vulnerability today

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Blood and Ash:Ecological Collapse and the Rise of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Americas

by Mary Harrsch © 2025

I've just uploaded the final version of my paper: Blood and Ash:Ecological Collapse and the Rise of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Americas. It has 127 illustrations and I have cited 431 sources. In it I compare the response to ecological catastrophes of cultures in ancient America with those of Late Antique Rome under the reign of Justinian. I also compare their different agricultural strategies, sanitation systems, treatment of refugee populations, and contributors to infant mortality.

AI-generated image of what an Aztec priest of Huitzilopochtli may have looked like to sacrificial victims being led to Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan based on a mythological painting of the god. Produced with Adobe Firefly by the author.

You can read it here:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15882288

Here's the abstract:

This multidisciplinary study investigates the rise of human sacrifice in ancient Mesoamerica as part of a broader transformation in cosmological ideology shaped by ecological upheaval and political centralization. Drawing on archaeological, iconographic, isotopic, and ethnohistorical evidence, the paper traces the intensification of ritual violence from the resettlement of Xitle eruption refugees in the southern Basin of Mexico to the aftermath of the Ilopango eruption (ca. 536 CE) and into the militarized expansions of the Late Postclassic period. Climate shocks, resource scarcity, and elite competition reconfigured religious worldviews and leadership strategies, fueling increasingly violent expressions of sacred power.

The analysis contrasts divergent responses to catastrophe: while Late Antique Roman authorities under Justinian issued edicts to stabilize trade, secure truces, and implement public health measures following the volcanic winter triggered by eruptions at Ilopango and Iceland, Mesoamerican elites reasserted sacred authority through spectacular displays of ritual violence, including heart extractions and elite burials accompanied by human attendants.

Drawing on data from sites including Chaco Canyon, Cahokia, Tula, and Tenochtitlan, the study explores how migration, drought, and collapsing trade networks catalyzed new warrior ideologies and sacrificial practices. Particular attention is given to the possibility that displaced elites from Mississippian centers contributed to the Mexica’s (Aztecs’) disciplined martial ethos via convergence zones such as Chicomoztoc. These systems fused divine kingship with ritualized violence, transforming sacrifice into a tool of ecological negotiation and political legitimation.

It argues that cycles of drought, migration, and trade collapse fostered militarized religious orders and predatory tribute systems, with ideological rigidity and elite self-preservation ultimately fracturing indigenous societies before Spanish contact.

Acknowledgment of AI Assistance

Portions of this paper were supported by AI tools: OpenAI's ChatGPT 4o assisted with trajectory refinement, prose editing, and reference formatting; Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet contributed to argument structure; and DeepSeek-V3 aided in source identification and recommendations. All source analysis, interpretive framing, and final editorial decisions were made by the author. AI-generated images were created using Adobe Firefly (v1.0), based on prompts developed solely by the author and validated using archaeological and historical records.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

From Sacred to Strategic—How Constantine Repurposed Pagan Temple Wealth

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

I inadvertently began work on another article. I've been reading novels in the series The Sertorius Scrolls by Victor B Davis II and I've reached book 5, "Sulla's Fist", which is focused on The Social War between Rome and her Italian allies in the 1st century BCE. I knew Rome granted citizenship to almost everyone south of the Po river after this conflict but wondered why Rome was so fiercely against this request. I thought it might have to do with the grain dole and indirectly it did. Roman aristocrats insisted granting citizenship to its Italian allies would trigger a mass migration to Rome so they could qualify for the grain dole. In actuality though, this "fear" was a distraction from the real reason. The Roman elite in Rome did not want to dilute their power and influence by extending admittance to the Cursus Honorum to provincial elites.

Anyway, in the course of my research on the topic with ChatGPT I learned that the grain dole was later used by Constantine in the 4th century to divert power and resources away from Rome to his new capital at Constantinople along with his plunder of the treasures stored in pagan temples. Here's a sidebar that will be included in my new article. To illustrate it I created an image of a plundered statue being hauled into the Forum of Constantine while a Byzantine-era Roman soldier directs the delivery in Constantinople.

A statue plundered from a pagan temple is hauled into the Forum of Constantine under the watch of a Roman soldier in 4th-century Constantinople. Reused as political trophies, such statues symbolized the empire’s shift in power and illusion of faith—stripped of their sacred roles and repurposed to glorify the new "Christian" capital. Image produced with Adobe Firefly and Photoshop Generative Fill by the author.

I was able to develop the basic image with Adobe Firefly but ended up resorting to Photoshop's generative fill to improve the historical accuracy based on ChatGPT's analysis of the image. The AI pointed out the wagon driver's red tunic was too short for the 4th century, the Triumphal Arch too weathered, the statue needed restraints to hold it on the wagon, and I needed a porphyry column to represent Constantine's column in the center of the space.

I tried to make these corrections in the prompt but could not get the image to look appropriate. So, I opened the image in Photoshop and used its generative fill feature to change the length of the wagon driver's tunic, "repair" the entrance columns to the triumphal arch so it looked newer and remove trees that could be seen through the arch and place a red column in the center distance. I also had to remove some odd bits and create a second leg for the wagon driver. I had told the AI the wagon driver was wearing brown leather boots so I double checked that by the 4th century closed leather boots had come into use, especially in the east due to proximity to the eastern desert tribes.

Here is my sidebar article:

Constantine’s economic transformation of the empire relied not only on diverting grain and undermining the Roman aristocracy, but also on systematically extracting and repurposing the wealth of pagan temples. These institutions, often centuries old, held vast deposits of gold and silver, controlled extensive landholdings, and served as local financial centers in cities across the empire. By embracing Christianity, Constantine gained ideological cover to confiscate these assets—not as wanton destruction, but as a kind of moral purification. In practice, however, it was a calculated transfer of resources from traditional religious elites to the imperial court and church (Curran, 2000; MacMullen, 1984).

Rather than smashing pagan icons in a wave of destruction, Constantine reused them with deliberate symbolism. Throughout Constantinople, temples were quarried for building materials, and pagan statues were installed in prominent public spaces. The clearest example is the Forum of Constantine, completed around 330 CE. This ceremonial center was ringed with colossal statues taken from temples across the Mediterranean world—Athens, Ephesus, Aphrodisias, and Baalbek (Elsner, 1998; Mango, 1990). These were not subtle appropriations: gods once venerated in their original sanctuaries now stood as decorative trophies in the emperor’s new city.

One striking example is the statue of Athena Promachos, likely brought from Athens or a provincial temple and installed in the Forum or palace precinct. Stripped of her sacred context, the goddess no longer symbolized civic protection, but imperial domination—her presence a demonstration that the old gods now served the emperor's aesthetic and ideological aims. According to Eusebius, Constantine's agents “collected innumerable works of art from every province” and displayed them in Constantinople not for worship, but to glorify the imperial city (Life of Constantine 3.54–55; Eusebius, trans. Cameron & Hall, 1999).

At the same time, the wealth hidden behind these statues—the temple treasuries—was funneled into building programs and Christian patronage. The Lateran Basilica in Rome, the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem were all funded, at least in part, by redirected temple resources (Rousseau, 2012; Curran, 2000). Some confiscated lands were redistributed to imperial loyalists, ensuring that Constantine’s economic restructuring also reshaped the political landscape (MacMullen, 1984).

What emerges is not a portrait of religious zealotry but of imperial opportunism. Constantine did not destroy paganism outright—he gutted its infrastructure and appropriated its symbols. The gods still stood, but now as mute witnesses to their own defeat.

Echoes in the Present

Constantine’s strategy of cloaking resource seizure and institutional overhaul in the language of moral renewal has not been lost to antiquity. Even in the 21st century, some political leaders now appear to be taking a page from his playbook—invoking divine sanction, cultural identity, or national morality to justify the extraction of wealth, the dismantling of established institutions, and the reallocation of symbolic capital. The result, now as then, is a recoding of power: not through open destruction, but through appropriation and recontextualization.

Bibliography

Curran, J. (2000). Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century. Oxford University Press.

Elsner, J. (1998). Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: The Art of the Roman Empire AD 100–450. Oxford University Press.

Eusebius of Caesarea. (1999). Life of Constantine (A. Cameron & S. G. Hall, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work written ca. 337 CE)

MacMullen, R. (1984). Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400). Yale University Press.

Mango, C. (1990). Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Rousseau, P. (2012). The Early Christian Centuries. Longman.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Ancient slingers: The power of a simple stone

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

I saw this beautifully angled image of Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s “David” on Facebook this morning and it reminded me how masterful Bernini was in capturing the human form in such dynamic poses. I’ve previously mentioned how much I admired Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne when I visited the Villa Borghese back in 2009 and had forgotten about this marvelous work there as well. This particular photographic angle especially emphasizes not only the power of David’s muscles but the lethality of his simple shepherd’s weapon as well. I wish I could have determined the photographer’s name. I searched through Google images but the image, although shared widely on the web, was not properly credited to its obviously talented photographer.

David and his sling by Bernini at Villa Borghese. Photographer unknown.

Slingers were an important and widely used component of ancient military forces, valued for their range, mobility, and cost-effectiveness. The sling is one of the oldest projectile weapons, dating back to at least the Neolithic period (c. 10,000 BCE). Archaeological finds in Egypt and the Near East provide evidence of its use by Sumerians, Assyrians and Egyptians although the use of slingers is documented more prominently in later classical period armies.

Slingers were valued for long range weapons as a skilled slinger could hurl stones or lead bullets (glandes) up to 400 meters, outranging many archers. Sling bullets could reach speeds of over 100 km/h, making them deadly against even lightly armored troops and their ammunition, though often manufactured of molded lead or fired clay in professional armies, could also be found along streams if necessary.

Balearic sling stones courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Museu de Menorca

From the New Kingdom and even earlier, Egyptian slingers used not only river-smoothed stones from the Nile, but fired clay pellets, hardened for greater impact, as well. Such pellets have been found in Amarna and other sites. Scholars have also speculated that Egyptians with their knowledge of advanced metallurgy may have also produced bronze or copper pellets. Slingers were used in battles against the Hyksos, Hittites, and Sea peoples.

Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians also produced molded clay sling bullets often inscribed with cuneiform reading “Expeller of Evil” or kings’ names. Assyrian reliefs of the battle of Lachish show slingers engaged in the city’s siege.

Although poorer Greek troops used stone or clay during the Classical and Hellenistic Period, more elite troops adopted lead pellets during the 5th – 4th centuries BCE, often inscribed with city symbols such as Athens’ owl.

Ancient Greek Sling bullets at the British Museum courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Marie-Lan Nguyen

Pre-Roman Iberian and Celtiberian slingers also used baked clay bullets but adopted lead bullets after conflicts with Romans, Carthaginians, and Phoenician mercenaries. The Greeks and Romans also introduced whistling sling bullets created with holes to produce a terror-inducing shriek in flight. “Cursed” bullets became popular, too, inscribed with insults like “Take this!” and “For Pompey’s back!” dated to the period of Caesar’s civil war.

Tactically, slingers were less hampered by rain than archers, making them more reliable in wet climates—one reason why Balearic and Celtic slingers remained dominant in places like Britain and Gaul. Wet bowstrings (especially those made of sinew or hemp) lost tension, reducing range and power. Composite bows (like those of the Assyrians or Mongols) could even delaminate in prolonged rain. In contrast, leather or woven fiber sling cords absorbed moisture but remained functional. A wet sling might become slightly harder to release smoothly, but skilled slingers adjusted their technique. Fletched arrows could also get waterlogged, destabilizing flight. Sling stones or lead glandes (Roman) were impervious to water and performed better when wet because their density and aerodynamics didn’t change. Although archers needed to keep spare bowstrings dry (often under helmets or cloaks), slingers could carry multiple slings or dry their cords quickly. Some ancient texts suggest slingers wrapped cords around their wrists when not in use to minimize exposure.

Balearic Slinger by illustrator and Wikimedia Commons contributor Johnny Shumate

Although Carthage and Rome hired Balearic Slingers (from the Balearic Islands) renowned for their incredible accuracy and power, Greek and Hellenistic armies used slingers from Rhodes who were also highly respected. In his “Anabasis,” Xenophon describes Rhodian slingers outperforming Persian archers in rainy mountain battles.

One notable Roman battle where slingers played a decisive role was the Battle of the Sucro (75 BCE) during Sertorius’ Revolt in Hispania. Quintus Sertorius, a disaffected Roman general, fielded a large contingent of Balearic slingers to relentlessly harass Pompey the Great’s forces. Pompey’s forces suffered heavy casualties and the constant barrages disrupted his formations. At a critical moment, Sertorius’ slingers targeted Pompey himself, wounding him in the arm and forcing him to withdraw temporarily, demoralizing his troops. Senate forces led by Metellus Pius arrived in time to prevent a total rout, but the slingers' effectiveness showcased their tactical importance. Pompey later adapted by recruiting his own auxiliary slingers to counter Sertorius’ tactics. Years later at the battle of Pharsalus (48 BCE), Pompey employed slingers and archers against Caesar, though Caesar’s cavalry countermeasures neutralized them.

Roman slinger portrayed on the Trajan column. (Photo Credit: Apollodorus of Damascus / Wikimedia Commons)

Slingers remained effective into the Roman Imperial period but were gradually supplanted by more advanced missile troops (e.g., composite bows, crossbows). The rise of heavy cavalry and improved armor reduced their battlefield impact over time although slingers persisted in some regions, such as the Spanish honderos, into medieval times.

David and Goliath carved on the walls of 10th century Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Aghtamar courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Lostinafrica

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Relieving stress with Pompeii building project by Givenni

 by Mary Harrsch

I read mythical creatures and animals made of Lego are gracing an exhibit at the Corinium Museum, in Cirencester, UK to celebrate the anniversary of a Roman mosaic's discovery there.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g49n0q8x0o

In a coincidence, this morning I finished my Lego-compatible Pompeii building project. The set is actually produced by Givenni and is the largest set I have attempted at 2,539 pieces. I've also completed Givenni's Ancient Acropolis of Athens, their Trojan Horse set, and a Roman centurion's helmet.

Therapists have discovered many adults find building with Lego or Lego-compatible bricks to be a highly effective way to relieve stress and unwind. Here’s why it resonates with so many grown-ups:

1. Mindfulness & Flow State

Building with Lego requires focus, which can help quiet the mind and induce a state of flow—where you’re fully immersed in the activity, temporarily pushing aside worries and distractions.

2. Tactile & Sensory Satisfaction

The physical act of snapping bricks together provides a satisfying sensory experience, which can be grounding and calming, much like other hands-on hobbies (painting, knitting, or woodworking).

3. Creativity & Problem-Solving

Whether following instructions or free-building, Lego engages the brain in a low-pressure, rewarding way. Designing MOCs ("My Own Creations") can be especially fulfilling.

4. Nostalgia & Playfulness

For many, Lego brings back joyful childhood memories, offering a return to carefree creativity—something adults often miss in their daily routines.

5. Structured Yet Flexible

Unlike open-ended creative tasks (like writing or drawing), Lego offers structure (via instructions) while still allowing for improvisation, making it approachable yet engaging.

6. Community & Shared Joy

The adult Lego community (AFOLs—Adult Fans of Lego) is thriving, with forums, conventions, and social media groups where people share builds, tips, and enthusiasm.

What Other Adults Say:

• Many report that Lego helps with anxiety, ADHD, or burnout by providing a relaxing, screen-free escape.

• Some use it as a form of "active meditation" after work.

• Therapists even recommend Lego for stress relief and cognitive engagement.

Although I enjoy working on my research, I find spending too many hours staring at a computer screen can actually make me feel light-headed and a need for different type of intellectual stimulation that includes using other parts of my brain.  If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!