This short chapter recapitulates the substantive advances made by the individual chapters in this volume before closing remarks on the difference between using probability to represent epistemic uncertainty and modelling variability, two exercises that are easily confused, and on the use of models to answer historical questions.

This chapter introduces the concepts and methods used by the other chapters in the volume, using the long-standing problem of estimating the land carrying capacity of classical Attica to illustrate the benefits of probabilistic modelling. We begin by surveying the development of techniques for managing uncertainty in ancient history (1.1) and past work on the specific problem of Attica’s land carrying capacity (1.2). The chapter then turns to theoretical questions about the nature of uncertainty and probability (1.3), introducing the ‘subjectivist’ conception of probability as degree of belief, a theoretical framework that makes probability a powerful tool for historians. We go on to discuss the procedure of using probability distributions to represent uncertainty about the actual value of a quantity such as average barley yield in ancient Attica (among other variables relevant to the problem of land carrying capacity) (1.4), the need to be aware of cognitive biases that distort our probability judgements (1.5), the use of Monte Carlo simulation to combine uncertainties (1.6), the potential problem of epistemic interdependence (1.7), the interpretation of the outputs of a Monte Carlo simulation (1.8), and the use of sensitivity analysis to identify the most important sources of uncertainty in a simulation. The appendix illustrates model code in R.

The non-agricultural economy of the ancient Greek world included crafts, trade, and services. Evidence for such, heavily biased towards Athens, is found via philosophical writing, comedy, forensic speeches, inscriptions, and archaeological finds. Elite attitudes, in which farming was the idealised citizen occupation, also impact the evidence. Nevertheless, at least 230 different terms for non-agricultural roles and occupations can be found in the sources (with many overlaps). Of these, fifty-three are for women. Workshops were generally small, with up to five or six craftsmen of low status, predominantly resident aliens (metics), freedmen or slaves. At least some rich citizens at Athens owned workshops, with a number of slaves perhaps able to live and work independently. Notable trades such as mining, marble-, bronze-, and metalwork, ceramics, and tanning seem to have clustered in common locations within cities and territories. Women’s non-agricultural economic roles seem to have been related mainly to textiles, retail of simple products, and provision of personal services.

Greek agriculture took place within a largely Mediterranean regime of annual, dry-farmed grains and pulses, alongside perennial vines and olives. Hesiod’s Works and Days, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, the Attic orators, inscriptions, intensive survey, and comparative data from before 1950 form the main evidence. The agricultural year centred around winter sowing and summer harvest. Scholars propose two competing models of agriculture. Extensive agriculture used draft animals and biennial fallow and was more suited to at least mid-sized holdings, nucleated settlement, and transhumant livestock. Intensive agriculture required greater hand-cultivation and was suited to smaller plots, dispersed settlement, and mixed farming to provide year-round animal manure. High risk of crop failure made intensification, diversification, and storing a ‘normal surplus’ a rational subsistence strategy for smaller landowners. However, there is also evidence for connectivity and production for market. Debates over agricultural slavery, settlement, and possible intensification from the fifth century BCE intersect with the question of market participation.