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

SV: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas L. Thompson
    Dear Frank, Can you give me a reference for my rejecting your suggestion of a Hasmonean influence on Kings? I am getting old and I am forgetting things more.
    Message 1 of 106 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Frank,
      Can you give me a reference for my rejecting your suggestion of a Hasmonean influence on Kings? I am getting old and I am forgetting things more. But this surprises me. The closest I have ever come to the issue (according to my present memory) is my dating of the Massoretic chronology to post 164 BCE.
      Thomas

      Thomas L. Thompson
      University of Copenhagen

      ________________________________

      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com på vegne af frankclancy
      Sendt: ma 30-06-2008 19:32
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?



      Dear George - I do not believe Jerusalem ever had a king named David
      or Solomon. It is not only the kingdom of David and Solomon that has
      been shrinking badly - even according to fairly conservative
      archaeologists like Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern. Usually the Beth
      David inscription found at Tel Dan has been used to bolster the claim
      that David did exist and he was a king in Jerusalem. However, the
      Beth-David inscription does no such thing. It simply shows that
      there was a geo-political entity named Beth-David somewhere in the
      area (I shall incur the wrath of of a Danish war god in Sweden now-
      Gad!). The only indicator about the location of Beth David is found
      in the Meshe Stele (If Andre Lemaire and Nadev Na'aman are correct)
      and Meshe had to travel south of Dibon to attack Beth-David not north
      toward Jerusalem. In other words, the only piece of possible
      evidence about where Beth-David was located points away from
      Jerusalem.

      Usually when there has been a great king, others in the dynasty wish
      to be compared to that king so we should have David I, II, III and so
      on, or Solomon I, II, III etc. Instead, the most common name
      is "Ahaz" and in the Biblical texts, every king named Ahaz was a
      disaster: Ahaziah son of Ahab, Ahaziah so of Jehoram, Jehoahaz son
      of Jehu, Ahaz son of Jotham, and, Jehoahaz son of Josiah. In
      addition, we have 2 Jeroboams, 2 Jorams (unless we agree with John
      Strange), 3 Jehoash/Joash/Josiah but only one David and only one
      Solomon.

      In another posting, I mentioned that the "Dan to Beersheva" claim and
      its variants are probably "P" texts. See: Anton Schoors, "The Bible
      on Beer-Sheba", Te Aviv 17. 1990. However, there is a problem about
      the "P" map - Dan to Beersheva. When would a scribe in Jerusalem
      promote the novel idea that Israel should be Dan to Beersheva and
      ruled from Jerusalem?

      I would argue that the book of Kings was written after 141 BCE.
      Therefor, the references to the temples of Jeroboam, the sins of
      Jeroboam, the promise to David, the chronology, many of
      the "historical events" in the Biblical texts are Hasmonaean theo-
      political propaganda. Of course, this is a radical position and NP
      Lemche, Thomas Thompson and Philip Davies have rejected such a late
      date -those "stuck-in-the-mud" Jurassic type scholars! Gad!! Hah!

      Frank Clancy






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ariel L. Szczupak
      ... I don t know what traditional means in this context. We know that human biology results in exponential growth (aka Malthusian) in ideal reproductive
      Message 106 of 106 , Jul 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:40 PM 7/3/2008, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

        >Ariel,
        >
        >We are talking about a traditional society with traditional health
        >care. And a death rate among children of, say between 50 and 90%.

        I don't know what "traditional" means in this context.

        We know that human biology results in exponential growth (aka
        Malthusian) in "ideal" reproductive conditions (both environmental
        and social). I seem to recall that for humans the yearly growth rate
        figure (in ideal conditions) is somewhat above 5%. We also have hard
        data about populations in the present and near past which can be used
        to create models.

        And everything we know indicates that "static populations" are either
        a myth or extremely rare exceptions. When I first looked into how ANE
        population estimates were done (and was shocked), "common wisdom" had
        it that static populations could exist in primitive societies, e.g.
        the Amazonian tribes - but then the towns/cities in the Xingu region
        were discovered making these "stable size" societies something
        temporary (historically).

        I haven't seen anything that supports single-number population
        estimates for historical periods (i.e. more than one or two
        generations) being meaningful. All that I've seen (and to a certain
        degree researched) indicates that such numbers are simply pseudo-science.

        Note that archeological population estimates are different. They are
        based on material evidence from which a carrying capacity is
        calculated - i.e. a number that represents the maximal, or sometimes
        optimal, number of people that could be supported by the physical
        evidence that was discovered. I have many misgivings about specific
        archeological ANE population calculations I have seen, but at least
        the numbers, correct or not, are meaningful. But these capacity
        numbers become meaningless when they are turned into historical
        population numbers representing a century or more.

        Note also that mathematical averages are of course possible. The
        general process seem to be "sawtooth" like. I.e. an exponential
        growth (aka geometric, as opposed to linear growth) followed by a
        steep decline. These numbers can be averaged, but such averages
        remove the "sawtooth" aspect, making them practically meaningless
        from an historical point of view.

        I don't have quick access to my notes from back then, but a quick web
        search shows that the resources available online today on this
        subject are huge, and anyone interested can find a lot with just few
        keystrokes.

        Instead, two quick examples.

        Does "the medieval population of Europe was X" have an historical
        meaning? It was thought so when I was in school, but check:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography

        It's the growth/decline processes that have historical meanings, not
        some number for the entire period (or some sub period).

        And re tradition ...

        The understanding of the sawtooth aspect of historical population
        sizes is far from new, and indeed "traditional" :)

        2 Samuel 24:9 [KJV]: "And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the
        people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand
        valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five
        hundred thousand men."

        2 Samuel 24:13 [KJV]: "... shall seven years of famine come unto thee
        in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies,
        while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in
        thy land? ..."

        1.3 million "arm bearers" implies a general population of about 3-4
        million. Has "greater Canaan" a "carrying capacity" of 3-4 million
        people, given the 10th cbc material culture? My personal opinion is
        that it does, but that's beyond the scope of this message. However,
        wether the numbers are correct or not, this passage shows an
        understanding of the process and lists three of the most common
        causes for the decline part in the sawtooth (climate/environment, war
        and plague, with the 4th being emigration) with their associated
        (very steep) rates of decline.

        Personal note - what an amazing book. [And in case anyone wonders,
        I'm an atheist]

        >Furthermore, I do not care if the numbers can be corrected, as long
        >as the way they are calculated remains the same. We can also discuss
        >the way of calculating numbers. No problem.

        I don't understand the above.

        What I'm trying to say is that while "carrying capacity" is a
        meaningful number, representing the population during an historical
        period (more than 1-2 generations) by a single number is not.

        If I recall correctly, a population growth rate of below 1% per year
        (a number that includes everything - births, deaths, arrivals &
        departures) is considered to be temporary (leading either to a
        quicker rate or to a decline). In real-life conditions rates above 2%
        per year are considered "quick". So let's see what happens in this
        range for a large village of 1000 people during a century (rounding to tens).

        1% growth rate:

        25 years - 1280. 50 years - 1640. 75 years - 2110. 100 years - 2700.

        1.5% growth rate:

        25 years - 1450. 50 years - 2110. 75 years - 3050. 100 years - 4430.

        2% growth rate:

        25 years - 1640. 50 years - 2690. 75 years - 4420. 100 years - 7240.

        I.e. a difference of 1% in the growth rate results in a difference of
        almost 270% in the size of the population after 100 years. That
        difference grows to 720% after 200 years, 1920% after 300 years and so on.

        These numbers have historical implications. E.g. if the calculated
        carrying capacity is 2000 people, you know that whatever the growth
        rate was, there was an historical event, at least one, that dropped
        the population level during that period. If the calculated carrying
        capacity is 10000 but you have no archeological evidence of the
        village becoming a town, you again can infer an historical event. Etc.

        And while growth rates and carrying capacities are meaningful
        numbers, determining them for specific locations or areas, in
        specific time periods, is far from trivial. And as the example above
        shows, choosing the wrong growth rate to model some historical
        period, wrong by a fraction of a percent, can result in computed
        populations sizes that are very far from the historical ones.

        For example, we know that Pontius Pilate had water brought to
        Jerusalem from springs near Hebron. Was it because the carrying
        capacity of the local water resources was reached, or was it because
        of a lifestyle that increased the quantity of water needed per
        person? Can the volume of the local water resources be evaluated for
        that period? What is local in that respect? Herod could have had mule
        trains bring water from nearer springs, e.g. Ein Yahel, Ein Karem,
        Abu Gosh, etc. And if these can be answered - can a number
        representing a yearly volume of water be translated into a number of people?

        Why water? because I think that it's safe to assume that food was not
        a factor in determining the carrying capacity of Jerusalem during the
        Herod or Pontius Pilate reigns. Why this period (which is short
        enough for a population size to have meaning)? Because of all the
        estimates that floated around during the Talpiot Tomb fiasco. If an
        argument could be made that the water carrying capacity of Jerusalem
        was reached during Pontius Pilate's reign, and if that could lead to
        a "water volume into number of people" calculation, then maybe we'd
        have a figure with some reasonable likelihood.

        Population estimates are not my thing, though I was sidetracked into
        them at one time. So I'm off this topic. The moral for me was to
        ignore population sizes for historical periods as meaningless, and
        not to accept carrying capacity or growth rate figures without
        checking carefully how they were reached. YMMV.



        Ariel.

        [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

        ---
        Ariel L. Szczupak
        AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
        POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91406
        Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
        ane.als@...
        ---
        http://yvetteszczupakthomas.blogspot.com/
        http://undiamantbrut.blogspot.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.