Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel

Expand Messages
  • Yigal Levin
    Dear Daniel, If it s the Galilee that you re interested in, then you re asking about Tiglath-pileser III who invaded Aram and the northern parts of Israel in
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Daniel,

      If it's the Galilee that you're interested in, then you're asking about Tiglath-pileser III who invaded Aram and the northern parts of Israel in 734/3, not Shalmaneser V, who invaded Samaria in 722. This may be the source of some of the confusion.

      In Zvi Gal's Lower Galilee during the Iron Age (Trans. Marcia Reines Josephy; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,1992), around pp. 108-9, he sites a 50% (this from memory) decline in settlement in the Lower Galilee in the late 8th century, with another decline in the seventh (or perhaps the 50% is the total of both), based mostly on survey data. Assuming that the deportations included most of the ruling and professional classes (including cultic professionals), this would have been a devistating blow to any existing social structure.
      On the other hand, 50% of the population WAS left on the land. In addition, neither the Bible nor Assyrian sources claim that the Assyrians imported new settlers, as they later did in Samaria. Nor is there any archaeological evidence of repopulation in the 7th century, although there was some Pheonician settlement later on. So most of whoever was left in the 6-5 centuries was still "Israelite" (whatever that meant in the Galilee, and whether they would have used that definition). So what you are really asking is whether these people suddenty emerged as "Jews" in the 2-1 centuries under the Hasmoneans and then made up the Jewish population of Roman Galilee, or whether the Jewish Galileans were a result of either Hasmonean settlement or mass forced-conversion, hinted at by Josephus. I, for one, would take the "forced-conversion" story with several grains of salt.

      Yigal Levin

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Daniel Grolin
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:50 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel


      Dear Doug,

      Thank you for refocusing the thread. In fact my original request (not that I don't appreciate the references) was whether there was a consensus about the historicity of the complete and total deportation of the northern kingdom. I am somewhat stuck between the view of of Richard Horsley, who proposes that Galilee of the first century CE should be understood in the context of an Israelite religion, versus Sean Freyne who accepts the complete deportation and understands Galilee in the context of Judaic religion exported under the Hasmoneans. Horsley, as I recall it, suggests that only the elites were deported and a complete deportation was unrealistic in the context of military campaign. Freyne points to archaeological evidence for lack of a population, but the archaeology, as I understand it, relies on surface surveys and is therefore inconclusive.

      Am I talking nonsense here? (It's been a while since I read either.)

      Regards,

      Daniel Grolin


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Doug Petrovich <nbtsdp@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, 31 May, 2007 12:42:37 PM
      Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel

      Dear All,

      Listers have yet to address the heart of Daniel's question, which is the
      invasion under Shalmaneser V. While not attempting to address his question
      as this point, I would point out that while Shalmaneser V would be the
      Assyrian king to have invaded, Sargon II would be the one to have deported
      them.

      So for Daniel's sake, perhaps we can stray away from the Babylonian
      invasion(s) of the southern kingdom, and move back into the realm of the
      Assyrian invasion of the "northern" kingdom.

      Doug Petrovich
      Novosibirsk, Russia

      __________________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
      now.
      http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/819 - Release Date: 26/05/2007 10:47


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Lisbeth S. Fried
      Dear Daniel, I have been struggling with these issues myself. It is important to realize that rural peasants need cities. They were never self-sufficient. Once
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Daniel,

        I have been struggling with these issues myself. It is important to realize
        that rural peasants need cities.

        They were never self-sufficient. Once the elite have been deported, the
        cities disappear, markets disappear, sources for new equipment disappears.
        Finally the peasants also leave. This is discussed in Tainter, Joseph A. The
        Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, 1988. That is why
        even if only 50% are deported eventually there is no one left, the rest
        leave. It is not the case that they can continue as if nothing happened.



        Regarding survey vs excavations, archaeologists dispute vehemently the value
        of each. Some who do one kind won't talk to those who do the other. Israel
        Finkelstein does both, and both yield information. Neither is a substitute
        for the other. I would accept Sean Freyne's conclusions regarding the issues
        below. Survey data is not inconclusive. The work of Jonathan Reed is quite
        relevant here. There is a brief but enlightening article by him in Galilee
        Through the Ages, edited by Eric Meyers, that addresses your questions.



        Liz Fried



        _____

        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        Yigal Levin
        Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:35 AM
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel



        Dear Daniel,

        If it's the Galilee that you're interested in, then you're asking about
        Tiglath-pileser III who invaded Aram and the northern parts of Israel in
        734/3, not Shalmaneser V, who invaded Samaria in 722. This may be the source
        of some of the confusion.

        In Zvi Gal's Lower Galilee during the Iron Age (Trans. Marcia Reines
        Josephy; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,1992), around pp. 108-9, he sites a 50%
        (this from memory) decline in settlement in the Lower Galilee in the late
        8th century, with another decline in the seventh (or perhaps the 50% is the
        total of both), based mostly on survey data. Assuming that the deportations
        included most of the ruling and professional classes (including cultic
        professionals), this would have been a devistating blow to any existing
        social structure.
        On the other hand, 50% of the population WAS left on the land. In addition,
        neither the Bible nor Assyrian sources claim that the Assyrians imported new
        settlers, as they later did in Samaria. Nor is there any archaeological
        evidence of repopulation in the 7th century, although there was some
        Pheonician settlement later on. So most of whoever was left in the 6-5
        centuries was still "Israelite" (whatever that meant in the Galilee, and
        whether they would have used that definition). So what you are really asking
        is whether these people suddenty emerged as "Jews" in the 2-1 centuries
        under the Hasmoneans and then made up the Jewish population of Roman
        Galilee, or whether the Jewish Galileans were a result of either Hasmonean
        settlement or mass forced-conversion, hinted at by Josephus. I, for one,
        would take the "forced-conversion" story with several grains of salt.

        Yigal Levin

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Daniel Grolin
        To: ANE-2@yahoogroups. <mailto:ANE-2%40yahoogroups.com> com
        Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:50 AM
        Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel

        Dear Doug,

        Thank you for refocusing the thread. In fact my original request (not that I
        don't appreciate the references) was whether there was a consensus about the
        historicity of the complete and total deportation of the northern kingdom. I
        am somewhat stuck between the view of of Richard Horsley, who proposes that
        Galilee of the first century CE should be understood in the context of an
        Israelite religion, versus Sean Freyne who accepts the complete deportation
        and understands Galilee in the context of Judaic religion exported under the
        Hasmoneans. Horsley, as I recall it, suggests that only the elites were
        deported and a complete deportation was unrealistic in the context of
        military campaign. Freyne points to archaeological evidence for lack of a
        population, but the archaeology, as I understand it, relies on surface
        surveys and is therefore inconclusive.

        Am I talking nonsense here? (It's been a while since I read either.)

        Regards,

        Daniel Grolin





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: ANE-2 In Response To: Lisbeth Fried On: Depopulation From: Bruce LISBETH: They were never self-sufficient. Once the elite have been deported, the cities
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          To: ANE-2
          In Response To: Lisbeth Fried
          On: Depopulation
          From: Bruce

          LISBETH: They were never self-sufficient. Once the elite have been deported,
          the cities disappear, markets disappear, sources for new equipment
          disappears.

          BRUCE: The model here referenced is Tainter 1988. Which I haven't read, and
          will presently read, but meanwhile, I have to wonder about its universality.
          It seems to me possible to have a rural population that is (what one might
          call) mutually sufficient (rural markets, etc; this is basically what we
          Easterners call the Mencian model) without being very significantly
          organized as part of a city-based system. If the rural producers ARE
          integrated into a city-based system, and the city focus of that system is
          later knocked out, never mind why, the rural part of that system might well
          decline without recovering equilibrium at its former lower level. But
          speaking merely intuitively, I wouldn't necessarily look for rural
          depopulation to follow in all cases.

          China, or certain parts of it, between 0770 and 0400 seems to show a process
          of incorporation of the lower population into the same system as the
          previously rather separate stratum of the upper or military elite
          population. If so, then the condition at the early end of the process might
          will be, or be in the direction of, a counterexample.

          Anybody have another?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Robert M Whiting
          On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, E Bruce Brooks wrote: ... Ever read William Jennings Bryan s Cross of Gold Speech? I tell you that the great cities rest upon
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, E Bruce Brooks wrote:

            <snip>
            > China, or certain parts of it, between 0770 and 0400 seems to show a process
            > of incorporation of the lower population into the same system as the
            > previously rather separate stratum of the upper or military elite
            > population. If so, then the condition at the early end of the process might
            > will be, or be in the direction of, a counterexample.
            >
            > Anybody have another?

            Ever read William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" Speech?

            I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile
            prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities
            will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the
            grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

            Not what you'd call scholarship, but still it has a certain compulsion to
            it.

            Bob Whiting
            whiting@...
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: ANE-2 In Response To: Bob Whiting On: Collapse of Complex Societies From: Bruce I had doubted whether collapse of the urban center would necessarily entail
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              To: ANE-2
              In Response To: Bob Whiting
              On: Collapse of Complex Societies
              From: Bruce

              I had doubted whether collapse of the urban center would necessarily entail
              literal depopulation of its hinterland. I had called for a counterexample.
              The only one so far offered is:

              BOB: Ever read William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" Speech? "I tell you
              that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down
              your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if
              by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of
              every city in the country." Not what you'd call scholarship . . .

              BRUCE: No, not what I would call scholarship.

              It's night here, and I thus haven't been able to access a Tainter since
              Tainter was last mentioned. But from what can be gleaned from the six
              reviews of it which JSTOR includes, Tainter may have problems too (none of
              the reviews is wholly positive). For one thing, I get the impression that he
              prefers internal explanations (this is still the Age of Renfrew, isn't it)
              to external ones. But precisely in the case of Rome, one of his three main
              examples, a case can be made, and by one reviewer *is* made, that external
              factors were decisive.

              Tainter is also said to take up, though at less length, the "collapse" of
              early China. I get the impression that this means the loss of power by the
              hegemonic Jou state in the year 0771. Almost needless to say, no reviewer of
              the six dares touch on China material. China is agreed by all civilized
              persons to be somewhere off the planet. That I understand. And little
              enough, in all conscience, is known about the event in question. But if that
              is indeed the example, it may, I think, be said with reasonable confidence
              that the sudden vanishing of Jou overlordship left the former tributary
              states themselves in perfectly viable shape, as newly independent states.
              Over the next century, beyond merely surviving, which they did handsomely
              and without recorded or rumored difficulty, they gradually associated
              themselves into a lateral multi-state system, with indeed a more dispersed
              sovereignty than before, but not no sovereignty at all. The general
              expectation in such cases might be that the units become smaller, once the
              coordinating power is removed, but they don't themselves vanish. On the
              contrary, they may well become stronger.

              Loss of complexity (Tainter's term) may not mean loss of everything. It may
              simply mean, and some reviewers seem to imply that Tainter may sometimes
              mean by it, a reversion to a less complex situation.

              Is this such a strange notion? Did the "collapse" of Rome depopulate the
              shores of the Mediterranean?

              If your town's Wal-Mart were suddenly removed (as, by a bomb), the effect on
              the merely local retail sector would probably be beneficial rather than
              harmful, no? Ask your local bookseller, next time you drop in, and if you
              haven't dropped in for a while, maybe you should make it a point to do so,
              while the bookseller is still there. Do it today.

              The advent of the national chain Staples some years ago, in my area, drove
              at least three local stationers out of business, or into business in more
              remote locations. The notion that the more nationally integrated sector of
              the economy is necessary to the health of the more locally based sector(s)
              of the economy is not one that is going to survive many lunches with small
              business owners. Or so my personal data files seem to suggest.

              Then farmers whose source of John Deere tractors were suddenly removed might
              go back to horses, but that they would abandon farming altogether seems a
              drastic assumption. It is at least worth considering that, without the
              expropriative tax on their yield, which is what The City might represent to
              some of them, they would have enough to eat in the first place. Having
              enough to eat might be thought to be a supportive, rather than a
              disintegrative, factor in the future of the rural sector.

              Is the city parasitic on its hinterland, or constitutive for its hinterland?
              The answer may be situationally dependent, or culture dependent, or even
              technology dependent, but the most general answer still seems to me to be,
              in all probability, other than Tainter is reputed to think it is.

              But soon comes the dawn, and I will have my shot at seeing what Tainter
              thinks he thinks. More perhaps then.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • paolo merlo
              Dear Liz, As the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles say that Salmaneser conquered Samaria, whilst the inscriptions of Sargon II says that he himself was the
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Liz,
                As the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles say that Salmaneser conquered
                Samaria, whilst the inscriptions of Sargon II says that he himself was the
                "conqueror of Samaria", some scholars suggest that Salmaneser V conquered
                Samaria, but only Sargon II carried out the deportation.
                Cfr. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994, p.
                457-58.

                Other matter: I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silbermann say that a torrent of
                refugees came from Israel to Judah in the short period of time between 722
                (Samaria's fall) and 701 (Sennacherib's campaign against Jerusalem). In
                Finkelstein-Silbermann's view, in the late eighth cent. BCE Jerusalem grew
                in size from c. 6 to c. 60 hectares. Cfr. I. Finkelstein, N.A. Silbermann,
                Temple and Dynasty. Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the
                Pan-Israelite Ideology, in JSOT 30, 2006, 259-285 (spec. 265-67).

                Best wishes,
                Paolo Merlo
                PUL - Rome

                ------------
                Posted by: "Lisbeth S. Fried"
                lizfried@...

                Thu May 31, 2007 6:30 am (PST)


                Prof. Tadmor suggested (personal communication; I don’t know if
                he wrote it

                somewhere) that Shalmaneser V deported them, and that Sargon II took the

                credit in his inscriptions.



                But I don’t know how we’d verify that.



                Liz Fried

                _________________________________________________________________
                Scarica Windows Live Messenger e chiama gratis in tutto il mondo!
                http://www.messenger.it/connessione.html
              • Niels Peter Lemche
                It is quite obvious that Finkelstein and Silberman are quite conventional here. It s an age old idea of, e.g., Albrecht Alt and the old explanation of the
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 4, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  It is quite obvious that Finkelstein and Silberman are quite conventional here. It's an age old idea of, e.g., Albrecht Alt and the old explanation of the presence of deuteronomism in the Old Testament.

                  Would be interesting to know if it is realy possible to date the expansion of Jerusalem to 722-701 and not after 701 as a consequence of Sennacherib's destruction of Hezekiah's kingdom, including the perhps formerly leading city of Lachish.

                  It's a couple of yars ago since I read the first volume by Finkelstein and Silberman, but I do not remember them presenting any special evidence for their claim. Will check.

                  Niels Peter Lemche




                  -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
                  Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af paolo merlo
                  Sendt: 4. juni 2007 11:56
                  Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Depopulation of Northern Israel


                  Dear Liz,
                  As the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles say that Salmaneser conquered
                  Samaria, whilst the inscriptions of Sargon II says that he himself was the
                  "conqueror of Samaria", some scholars suggest that Salmaneser V conquered
                  Samaria, but only Sargon II carried out the deportation.
                  Cfr. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994, p.
                  457-58.

                  Other matter: I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silbermann say that a torrent of
                  refugees came from Israel to Judah in the short period of time between 722
                  (Samaria's fall) and 701 (Sennacherib's campaign against Jerusalem). In
                  Finkelstein-Silbermann's view, in the late eighth cent. BCE Jerusalem grew
                  in size from c. 6 to c. 60 hectares. Cfr. I. Finkelstein, N.A. Silbermann,
                  Temple and Dynasty. Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the
                  Pan-Israelite Ideology, in JSOT 30, 2006, 259-285 (spec. 265-67).

                  Best wishes,
                  Paolo Merlo
                  PUL - Rome

                  ------------
                  Posted by: "Lisbeth S. Fried"
                  lizfried@...

                  Thu May 31, 2007 6:30 am (PST)


                  Prof. Tadmor suggested (personal communication; I don't know if
                  he wrote it

                  somewhere) that Shalmaneser V deported them, and that Sargon II took the

                  credit in his inscriptions.



                  But I don't know how we'd verify that.



                  Liz Fried

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Scarica Windows Live Messenger e chiama gratis in tutto il mondo!
                  http://www.messenger.it/connessione.html




                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • K L Noll
                  Greetings, all: I really don t want to intrude into this conversation, but since several times people have stressed the conventional viewpoint that refugees
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Greetings, all:
                    I really don't want to intrude into this conversation, but since several times people have stressed the conventional viewpoint that refugees poured into Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria and prior to Sennacherib's invasion, I thought I'd recommend that y'all might at least consider the interesting alternative argument by Axel Knauf. So far as I know, this has not yet been mentioned:

                    E. A. Knauf, "The Glorious Days of Manasseh," in L.L. Grabbe, editor, Good Kings and Bad Kings (T&T Clark International, 2005), pp. 164-88.

                    Knauf suggests, based on examination of the archaeological record for Judah, that the increase in Jerusalem population took place in the 7th century, not the late 8th century.

                    Shalom,
                    K. L. Noll
                    Brandon University
                    Brandon, Manitoba

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Tory Thorpe
                    ... Just how certain is the reading of Samaria in the Babylonian Chronicle? I know Tadmor was certain of this, but is anyone aware of dissenting opinion? Tory
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jun 5, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- paolo merlo <paolo_merlo@...> wrote:

                      > Dear Liz,
                      > As the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles say that
                      > Salmaneser conquered
                      > Samaria, whilst the inscriptions of Sargon II says
                      > that he himself was the
                      > "conqueror of Samaria", some scholars suggest that
                      > Salmaneser V conquered
                      > Samaria, but only Sargon II carried out the
                      > deportation.
                      > Cfr. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus
                      > Khorsabad, G�ttingen 1994, p.
                      > 457-58.

                      Just how certain is the reading of Samaria in
                      the Babylonian Chronicle? I know Tadmor
                      was certain of this, but is anyone aware of
                      dissenting opinion?

                      Tory Thorpe
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.