From my reading I'd say:
100 AD 20-40,000
1000 - 10,000 - 15,000
1300 100,000 (Derek Keene's work suggested this high figure)
1500 - 100,000
in 100 - 1000AD is the problem?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bea Hopkinson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Jorvick 10th c. POPULATION LONDON
> Akroyd's London may well make sense, as least from the evidence at
> Droitwich of saltmaking which hinges on population growth and market
> demand. Their markets, moreover, were traditionally to the south in
> London. There is also evidence of reduction in salt production during
> and after the Black Death. There was also pressure in the early 16th
> century to increase production by utilizing iron pans and using coal
> fuel. But this ancient monopoly was not easily turned around until 1725
> when unlimited quantities of brine were discovered and the salt industry
> expanded overnight!
> Does this interface with your own research ?
> On 4/12/01 3:08 PM Mark Simmons writes:
> >(I'm not sure of the population of London in the C10, but Ackroyds London
> >(my current bedtime reading) says it was about 40,000 in 1200, about
> >by 1349, dropping after the Black death b.f. rising to 85,000 by 1565,
> >again to 155,000 by 1605.Perhaps John Clark could help us out here for
> >Century London as a comparison ?...)
> >Mark Simmons
> >PS From memory, Dave's comparison of York with Hartlepool is pretty good.
> >The modern Borough of Hartlepool's population is about 140,000, which is
> >comparable in both pop and size with modern York. The C10 century
> >at Hartlepool by contrast was confined to the headland, and would gave
> >population of perhaps 500.
> Beatrice Hopkinson 73071,327@compuserve