ranges, where the counts per “long” century (105 years) are weighted (lower for wider
ranges):
The same general trend can be observed, a strong rise from ca 500 , a high level from
ca 300 to ca 100 , and a precipitous drop ca 150 . (In principle one could combine
these two graphs, but sufficient complexities would arise regarding the widths of the inter-
vals, and no significant new results would be expected.) As argued in the Introduction, pp. 7–8,
the decline in science around 150 was due to a shift of the political paradigm, the
centralization of power and the loss of autonomy (cf. also P.T. Keyser, “Roman Science,” in
A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel, Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies [2008: forthcoming]). This
shift is from what Jane Jacobs, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of
Commerce and Politics (1992), has called the “commercial” syndrome to the “extractive” syn-
drome. The latter is characterized by adherence to tradition, respect for hierarchy, honor,
loyalty, obedience, and ostentatious acts of patronage, a predilection for military prowess
and solutions, and rejection of investment and trade. In contrast the “commercial” syn-
drome encourages trade and investment, but eschews force, values thrift and industry, and
respects invention, dissent, honesty, and cooperation. Thus, one expects to find evidence
of a significant decline in trade around 150 , and indeed shipwreck evidence strongly
confirms that: A.J. Parker, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (1992)
fig. 3 and 5, pp. 549 and 551; data pp. 10–14.
The table on the following pages (940–986) shows the scientists whose date-ranges are
plotted in the two graphs above: narrow date-ranges on the left and wide date-ranges on the
right.
Number of scientists (with “wide” date-ranges) per centuryTIME-LINE