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

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

Expand Messages
  • Niels Peter Lemche
    Dear Frank, Thank you for the reminer. That s the kind of reminders I have occasionally presented also to Tom. And are normally well aware of myself, when
    Message 1 of 106 , Jul 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Frank,

      Thank you for the reminer. That's the kind of reminders I have occasionally presented also to Tom. And are normally well aware of myself, when things like a "city" or "kingship" comes up. Whether the concept of empire is Victorian, or goes back to Napoleon, or belongs to the cultural memory of the Roma nEmpire, is not very important.

      NP

      PS: Please, remember that the line is closed. So a new subject line should be included.

      -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne af Frank Polak
      Sendt: 2. juli 2008 07:42
      Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Emne: Re: SV: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?


      Dear Niels Peter,
      Happy those able to calculate populations. My experience, but again ,
      I am just an
      Israeli linguist and literary person, is that even simply counting
      existing data, is not
      easy. By the way, according to archeological method, different
      settlement patterns
      entail different proportions of population.
      The world of David as narrated is not very fairy, and as you seem to
      partly concede,
      entirely unimperial. But the truth (the literary truth, that is, the
      represented narrative world) is worse. The Absalom narrative implies
      that D had
      n o g a r r i s o n s . And worse than worse, when threatened, he
      l e a v e s t h e r o y a l r e s i d e n c e ,
      to make to Mahanayim with a few centurions (sit venium in cauda;
      would he have had a garrison over there, in view of the eastern
      front, or some loyal remainder?).
      We indeed are down to the EA numbers.
      Thus the implied picture of the narrative world is not only unlike a
      great empire,
      but it is plainly contrary to that picture.
      We can look at Ps 72, and some sundry texts in praise of Solomon, but
      these texts
      (a) cannot erase the picture arising from other texts, (b) should not
      function as corner stone
      for a historical discussion.
      As far as I can judge, but again , I am just an
      Israeli linguist and literary person, the represented narrative world of D and S is quite in agreement with many of the findings of the new
      archeology. Only
      if we would just find it in their heart to pay some attention to the
      texts they are
      discussing.
      Sorry to bother you, and best regards,
      Frank Polak

      On Jul 1, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:

      > Dear Frank,
      >
      > Quite an interesting question. And there is much in favor of your
      > position. Take, e.g., administration and the list of royal
      > officers, hardly the kind of administration to rule an empire. I
      > once heard Kitchen saying something very sensible, at an IOSOT
      > meeting many years ago. It was about the riches of Solomon.
      > Compared to actual information from the Egypt contemporary with
      > Solomon, it was nothing, absolutely nothing. Even a biblical writer
      > indicating a great king in Jerusalem would have no idea about what
      > real wealth is. Kitchen of course believed it to be historical.
      > However, are we in the world of fairy-tales, like in Genesis when
      > Abraham meets Pharaoh face to face?
      >
      > I once made a calculation about the size of Jerusalem in the 10th
      > century if there at all was one. Came down to a population of less
      > than 2000 people, which would with an average of about six persons
      > in a family (calculation building on numbers from espec. Alalakh)
      > say that there would have been about 200 grown up men at the most.
      > We are down to numbers such as those found in the Amarna letters.
      > Another key is the general opinion, expressed as I remember it by,
      > e.g. Liverani, that the capital in those days would embrace, say
      > 10% (or correct me if it is 20%) of the total population. These
      > figure comes from Syria (I believe that I found it in a piece of
      > Liverani about Ugarit) -- Marc Cooper and Robert Whiting might know
      > better -- saying that the king in Jerusalem might have had c.
      > 20.000 subjects, and about 2000 men at his disposal. Yes it is
      > small scale.
      >
      > Whether or not it is a Victorian empire is another question. There
      > are at least quite a few texts in the OT speaking about Solomon as
      > the great ruler of the world, as Ps 72. Again, the real trust of
      > your argument is that the authors hardly knew what that meant.
      >
      > The biblical idea of Solomon ruling also Tadmor (I know, hardly
      > anything to do with history) also says that there in these texts in
      > some way or the other is a feeling of David's and Solomon's kingdom
      > as great.
      >
      > Niels Peter Lemche
      >
      > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
      > Fra: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
      > af Frank Polak
      > Sendt: 1. juli 2008 07:27
      > Til: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      > Emne: Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Was Dan "in ships", or "complacent"?
      >
      > Dear Niels Peter,
      > Many thanks for this very clarifying message.
      > When you read into the HebB a description of David as 'a great
      > imperial king,' you are just projecting a Bourbon/Napoleontic,
      > Georgian/Victorian, Friederician/
      > Wilhelminian image into the Hebrew narrative. So D had a kingdom from
      > Dan to
      > Beersheba. So what? Thessalia (or the Pelopponesos) would have been
      > larger, i think, or at least comparable.
      > So D conquered Rabbat Ammon and even Moab and Edom. We still are
      > talking about a petty kingdom! So he defeated an Aramean expedition
      > force. The very fact that the HebB narrator
      > considers these acts as major achievements should stand as a grave
      > warning.
      > Let us consider two other HebB data: Solomon unable to pay the king
      > of Tyre
      > for the building of his palace and chapel (something smaller than a
      > Dutch village church,
      > as Martien Beek was careful to explain to us in our first year), and
      > unable to deal with a Sar Gdud in
      > Damascus.
      > O yes, and D's son fleeing to Geshur, east of the Kinneret (between
      > Hatzor and Damascus), and feeling safe there for three years.
      > Imperial? I ask you!
      > So there are some singular verses (some of them lacking
      > representation in LXX) that project a more imperial picture, but the
      > overall narrative disproves this picture unequivocally. In my view,
      > beingjust an Israeli linguist and literary person with some knowledge
      > of a few
      > Near Eastern and mediterranean ancient and modern languages and a lot
      > of Marx, any critical reading would discard that picture within a
      > couple of minutes.
      > The misreading was created by the Christian theologians at the
      > service of the
      > Bourbon/Napoleontic, Georgian/Victorian, Friederician/
      > Wilhelminian (I forgot Josephinian) empires/delusions. Davids kingdom
      > had to equal theirs, or at least the 'Holy Roman Empire.' Mazar and
      > some other modern historians
      > just inherited this picture.
      > By the way, since when is the extent of the royal residence (please,
      > spare me the
      > notion of 'capital,' we are not dealing with Rome) indicative of the
      > power of a kingdom?
      > And since when have archeologists dealt with the extent of that
      > residence?
      > Best regards,
      > Frank Polak
      >
      >
      >


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

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • 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.