Please change subject lines (Was: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?)
- Just a reminder that everybody's life will be just that little easier
- and the archive of these discussions more useful - if people can
please remember to change the subject line, _when_ the subject
Paul James Cowie
BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato
London, England and Sydney, Australia
Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel (http://www.rehov.org)
PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia
On 1 Jul 2008, at 14:06, Peter James wrote:
> Dear Frank,
> The analogies you give here are not quite germane. Can you cite
> another Near Eastern Beth ("House") which was not near the capital
> of its eponym? Best wishes, Peter James
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: frankclancy
> To: ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:01 AM
> Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?
> Dear George - I did not deny the existence of "David" whoever or
> whatever it may have been, The only possible evidence for the location
> of Beth-David is the Mesha Stele inscription and it seems Mesha
> travelled south of Dibon into southern Moab or northern Edom to attack
> Beth-David (although some scholars dispute reading "Beth-David" in the
> Mesha inscription). In other words, if Beth-David does indicate there
> was an original king named David, that king was not in Jerusalem. By
> the way, where I live, the city next door is called "Kitchener" after
> Lord Kitchener of the Boer War fame. As far as I know, Lord Kitchener
> never visited this region at all. In Ireland where I was born, there
> are many places, churches, mountains etc. named after St Patrick and
> yet we know that he never visited, let alone lives, in these places
> etc. In Great Britain, King Artur is called king of all England but at
> best he was a local warlord in souther Wales or in Cornwall or Devon.
> In fact, he may have arrived from Ireland. Yet in the 19th cent, a
> genealogy was developed showing Queen Victoria was a direct heir to
> Frank Clancy
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1528 - Release Date:
> 01/07/2008 07:26
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 03:40 PM 7/3/2008, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>Ariel,I don't know what "traditional" means in this context.
>We are talking about a traditional society with traditional health
>care. And a death rate among children of, say between 50 and 90%.
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
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
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:
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 longI don't understand the above.
>as the way they are calculated remains the same. We can also discuss
>the way of calculating numbers. No problem.
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.
[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