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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.