Interesting article from a year or so ago about the use of severed hands as trophies in battle in NKE:
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/severed-hands-trophies-of-war-in-new-kingdom-egypt/
This was a convenient way of counting enemy casualties, and saved having to drag the bodies into rows to see how many there were. Merneptah apparently adopted an even more efficacious and foolproof method of casualty calculation: because Egyptians were circumcised and their opponents mostly were not, he required the relevant part to be detached and brought. This was lighter and easier to carry than a hand and could be laid out in neat rows for easy counting.
Where the opponent might include circumcised manpower, hands were preferred. The trick was to remove Egyptian casualties - intact - first so that the unscrupulous could not claim merit under false pretences.
Now you'll tell us that there was an official p**** counter on pharaoh's staff.
It must have made things easier, though as he could use a five bar gate notation to speed counting.
Looking at the symbol for '1' in the Ancient Egyptian number system (http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/numbers/egypt/intro.htm), yes, a natural fit - not too sure about 10 and 100, though ...
For the record, Pharaoh usually had a symbol of Ra or a statuette of Amun on his staff. ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 07, 2015, 05:05:34 PM
This was a convenient way of counting enemy casualties, and saved having to drag the bodies into rows to see how many there were. Merneptah apparently adopted an even more efficacious and foolproof method of casualty calculation: because Egyptians were circumcised and their opponents mostly were not, he required the relevant part to be detached and brought. This was lighter and easier to carry than a hand and could be laid out in neat rows for easy counting.
Where the opponent might include circumcised manpower, hands were preferred. The trick was to remove Egyptian casualties - intact - first so that the unscrupulous could not claim merit under false pretences.
This approach also appears in 1 Samuel 18:26-27 where David presents the foreskins of 200 Philistines to King Saul is a bride price for Saul's daughter Michal. Perhaps not the sort of thing you would like to display at the wedding feast. You sleep
Well spotted, Chuck. And yes, the wedding feast could take a bad turn if someone made a mistake with the dishes after too much wine!
The implication is that casualty counts were taken seriously in these cultures, not least because some cultures had an award scheme.
Ahmose of el-Kab:
"One fought on the water in the canal Pazedkhu of Avaris. Then I fought hand-to-hand, I brought away a hand. It was reported to the royal herald. One gave to me the gold of valour."
Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.
My own interest in the matter extends to the size of Biblical period armies in general and Egyptian armies in particular. Sometimes the owners of such armies write about very large numbers taking the field under their command. If these authorities were so particular about verifying casualties, it strikes me as unlikely that they would misrepresent the numbers of their own forces.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 08, 2015, 12:10:29 PM
Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.
Or he could be exaggerating to increase his prestige. Modern politicians didn't invent spin :)
Quote from: Erpingham on March 08, 2015, 01:09:25 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 08, 2015, 12:10:29 PM
Hence if a Pharaoh claims he (or rather his army) slew 6,000 or even 60,000 of the enemy, he most probably did.
Or he could be exaggerating to increase his prestige. Modern politicians didn't invent spin :)
You beat me to that one Anthony. Whilst Pharaoh may have had a pretty good idea how many he had killed and how many he had lost, there is no real reason why he should have shared this figure.
It's not as if the records were in danger of being released to a hostile press 8)
Jim
Again, I doubt that Pharaoh would take such pains to establish correct enemy casualty figures and then lie about it - it is not as if his entire army would be unaware of the count that had taken place.
Where we occasionally see His Majesty bending the truth is in other aspects: Amenhotep II and Ramses II both emphasised their individual prowess in combat - the one at 'y-r-s-t' (Moresheth Gath) and the other at 'k-d-sh' (Carchemish). A small detail they omitted to mention is that in each case they left much of their army behind on the battlefield. Where the army, or rather the engaged portion of it, has not survived to confirm or deny, His Majesty can put a twist on the spin.
Conversely, the ever-victorious Thutmose III told only the truth - and reminds the gods several times that this is the case. And when Amenhotep II and Ramses II were victorious, they make mention of the enemy leadership who either perished on the battlefield or were brought back to Egypt to expiate their wrongdoings before Amun. This is actually a fairly good index for determining whether or not a Pharaoh won a particular battle - what happened to the enemy leadership by/at the end of the campaign?
Don't you remember 'comical ali' the Iraqi minister who announced the defeat of the Americans with US tanks in the background.
The troops in the army are unlikely to ever see the temple walls, and almost certainly couldn't read anyway.
Jim
Now, all I have to do is work this into a Friday night gaming scenario. Shouldn't be too hard......
Quote from: stevenneate on March 08, 2015, 11:13:30 PM
Now, all I have to do is work this into a Friday night gaming scenario. Shouldn't be too hard......
Just ask a few mates to lend you a hand ... ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 08, 2015, 10:58:19 PM
Don't you remember 'comical ali' the Iraqi minister who announced the defeat of the Americans with US tanks in the background.
The troops in the army are unlikely to ever see the temple walls, and almost certainly couldn't read anyway.
Iraqi ministers, especially of the Saddam era, were not exactly subscribers to the tradition of Ma'at, but did have a thorough grounding in the Arab tradition of wishful thinking. Ancient Egyptian soldiers interested to
read all abaht it on the walls of, say, Karnak or Medinet Habu had only to ask a scribe or priest - but they would also have been in the position of being able to compare notes ("I was there when the - er - trophies were counted.") which might be why Ramses II, for example, seems to leave out casualties on both sides whereas Merneptah puts the opposing casualties in. Ramses was covering for a defeat, but it is instructive to note that his method involved playing up his own role rather than mis-stating or inventing figures. (Merneptah would suffer defeats later in his reign, but never recorded them.)
That said, we may have lost some of the Karnak carvings over the centuries: Diodorus states that the murals recorded the Egyptian army as 400,000 strong, although even he makes no mention of casualties on either side.
Which is one reason why I am always wary of figures on the Murals.
The 'military caste' who were all technically members of the army might have been that strong; similarly if you included the manpower of all the tribes who were supposed to provide men, it might have been that strong.
But the 'Field army' never reached that sort of numbers
Jim
There are several things in play here. I believe that temple inscriptions were there primarily to glorify the pharaoh who erected them, rather than provide an objective history to passers by. I would also suggest the degree to which an individual soldier would be in a position to categorically disagree with the official version was limited. "OK, my division was hammered but maybe the other divisions did really well, which is why we won?" Versions of battles continue to vary according to the incomplete information available to participants.
I think there is also in this case an underlying issue with how much we trust large numbers in ancient sources. From previous debate, I know Patrick favours believing all ancient numbers unless by a known dodgy source, whereas Jim (and I) have a more Debruckian scepticism :)
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 09, 2015, 11:27:27 AM
But the 'Field army' never reached that sort of numbers
Do we know this for certain?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 09, 2015, 11:28:18 AM
There are several things in play here. I believe that temple inscriptions were there primarily to glorify the pharaoh who erected them, rather than provide an objective history to passers by.
This is a rather wide generalisation, as it would seem that some Pharaohs were more forthcoming with the truth, usually the more successful ones. Egypt had a culture of Ma'at, which is a composite of truth, harmony and serenity, and which is expressed in its art. Egyptians were great tellers of their achievements, but these achievements did tend to be factually based. They did not have our culture with its emphasis on appearances and presentation in place of real achievement.
Yes, Pharaoh did erect inscriptions to glorify himself. However he did not list imaginary deeds: that was simply not part of the culture. He might list deeds he had performed but omit any part of the affair that had not gone too well. Often enough, he was erecting pictures on temple walls - for the benefit of the gods, presumably to jog their memory of what a good chap he had been, which would gain him continued favour when he was in the Duat, the afterworld. We might do well to remember that temple priests were the record-keepers of ancient Egypt, and collective memory relied on them rather than on Pharaoh's inscriptions.
Quote
I would also suggest the degree to which an individual soldier would be in a position to categorically disagree with the official version was limited. "OK, my division was hammered but maybe the other divisions did really well, which is why we won?" Versions of battles continue to vary according to the incomplete information available to participants.
Yes and no: a soldier would know if after the battle there had been a count of appendages that enemy dead no longer required; he would probably be part of it, and would have received any reward due. But if the army had not held the battlefield and hence there had been no count of enemy dead, he would know that. The accounts of Ahmose pen-Nekhbet and Ahmose of el-Kab, our two 18th Dynasty 'warrior autobiographers', are very self-centred but also very aware of who won and where.
Quote
I think there is also in this case an underlying issue with how much we trust large numbers in ancient sources. From previous debate, I know Patrick favours believing all ancient numbers unless by a known dodgy source, whereas Jim (and I) have a more Debruckian scepticism :)
Indeed. :) And the reason Patrick favours numbers as written in these sources is that the picture is consistent across the ancient world and fits with the populations, societies and approaches to war of which we have records.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 09, 2015, 09:04:35 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 09, 2015, 11:27:27 AM
But the 'Field army' never reached that sort of numbers
Do we know this for certain?
Given that most field armies had to be supplied by boats travelling down the Nile, or if campaigning in Palestine, delivered by ship to a port, I think we can make a fair estimate of what is possible to supply.
Jim
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 09, 2015, 09:04:35 PM
Indeed. :) And the reason Patrick favours numbers as written in these sources is that the picture is consistent across the ancient world and fits with the populations, societies and approaches to war of which we have records.
A brave statement but not one I will challenge here (because I frankly don't have the knowledge base). However, records aren't everything. Archaeology, studies on the carry capacity of ancient landscapes, logistics all have to be considered too.
And the grain storage capacity of ancient cities, which seems to have been the key to most campaigning in the period.
Sometimes it can be demonstrated that an author is using a large and round number - like 1 million - as nothing more than a synonym for "a lot". Sima Qian springs to mind as a possible example. It might relate to the language used too?
I am not sure there is any such equivalent abstraction in Ancient Egyptian, and while the modern reader might attempt to dismiss, say, 400,000 as 'just 40 and a lot of zeroes', it is harder to apply the same approach to, for example, Sargon of Assyria's listing of armaments captured in the Urartian royal arsenal during his eighth campaign, wherein inter alia he details the 25,212 bronze shields ('great and small') and the 305,412 bronze daggers ('heavy and light') he found there. 305,412 is not a 'large and round number' (well, it is large) by any reckoning.
Granted that Diodorus' transcribed 400,000 is most likely a rounded number, as is Tacitus' 700,000 for Thutmose III's military manpower pool, but Egyptians did maintain careful bureaucratic records of their manpower (one of these caused Dudimose I Djedhotepre to order the male children of the Hebrews to be killed in order to stop their population expanding, thus demonstrating a sad lack of appreciation of basic population science) and hence such temple pronouncements would have been based on records rather than being an abstraction for 'many'.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 14, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
Granted that Diodorus' transcribed 400,000 is most likely a rounded number, as is Tacitus' 700,000 for Thutmose III's military manpower pool, but Egyptians did maintain careful bureaucratic records of their manpower (one of these caused Dudimose I Djedhotepre to order the male children of the Hebrews to be killed in order to stop their population expanding, thus demonstrating a sad lack of appreciation of basic population science) and hence such temple pronouncements would have been based on records rather than being an abstraction for 'many'.
I've always had a problem with some of the numbers around this period, especially with regard to this incident.
In Numbers 1:45 S
o the whole number of the Israelites, by their ancestral houses, from twenty years old and upwards, everyone able to go to war in Israel— their whole number was six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty.
Now then with this sort of numbers they had much the same manpower as Egypt, but were concentrated in a comparatively small area. It was also about the same number of fighting men as the Amalekites who fight them later. It's an awful lot of people to be living as nomadic herdsmen in the Sinai.
But even more troubling with regard numbers is that In Exodus 1:15 we get
"The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 'When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.' 17 But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, 'Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?' 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, 'Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.' 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, 'Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.'A couple of problems here.
One, a population of about 2.5 million (to have 600k men of military age) has two midwives. No wonder Hebrew women were giving birth before the midwife could arrive!
Two, if this augmented policy of all Egyptians overseeing the killing of Israelite boys was actually implemented, then it happened before Moses was born. Now Moses was supposed to have been 120 when he died meaning he was probably about sixty-eighty when he went back into Egypt.
Working it from the other way, he'd been in exile long enough to have a wife and sons, so he was probably at least thirty.
But if the killing of male babies ever was a policy, then by definition there would be no Israelite males under either thirty (or more Biblically) 60.
So these 600k plus fighting men must all have been over thirty (or sixty)
But when we have Joshua son of Nun who apparently died at 110, having been in the land since he was sixty and was therefore 20 when they left Egypt.
So obviously this killing of male babies had hardly been efficient, even if it had been carried out at all.
Trying to get figures from the other direction we have
Gen 46:26-7 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob -- those who were his direct descendants, not counting his sons' wives -- numbered sixty- six persons. With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob's family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.
Over 430 years, at 1% compound interest (not a bad rate of population growth for an oppressed people) there would be about 5,000 of them. At 2% which is a high population growth there'd be 350,000. I think you'd struggle to find a contained population in the ancient world that grew at that rate for so long.
But what I'm trying to say is that these books were written for a purpose and that purpose wasn't the transmitting of statistically accurate data.
The advantage we have with the Old Testament is that it's a long enough ancient document covering a specific people in enough details for us to realise that the numbers weren't designed to be taken too seriously from the point of view of data. It's even better in that large chunks of it are written by people with differing viewpoints and theological standpoints (compare Kings and Chronicles for example)
With a lot of other records we get only the one standpoint. We get the official figures that the Pharaoh published, but we don't know enough working class argot to know whether, like the Napoleonic French population, they had an expression, "To lie like a bulletin."
Jim
Interesting, Jim.
I went through much the same sort of calculations when looking at how long the Hebrews would have to stay in Egypt in order to generate a population of millions from the original 70 or so, and also how fast they would need to breed in order to overtake the Egyptian population at some point, preferably a few generations before the Exodus.
The measure used for population increase by demographers is 'doubling time', which, as one might expect, measures how long it takes for a population to double. The fastest figure under optimum conditions is usually 23 years or thereabouts. The usual limiting condition is the number of available females of breeding age. Doubling time gives rise to a measure known as the net increase rate, which is a per annum overall population growth (which compounds), and for a 23-year doubling time the net increase rate is 3%.
Being settled in the best land in Egypt, tax free and with nothing initially to do except breed like rabbits and live long lifespans, I gave them a benchmark doubling time of 23 years to reflect these ideal conditions.
The Hebrews spent about 80 years (3 reigns) of their 430-year stay in servitude, i.e. under the same obligations as the Egyptian population. Until then, they were free to propagate, which gives them 15 doublings (70x215), bringing their population to 2,293,760.
Now it is noticed that they are starting to outnumber the Egyptian population (putting this at slightly above 2 million). Life is no longer so idyllic as they are progressively subjected to taxation and compulsory work for Pharaoh, so we can increase the doubling time, perhaps to 46 years, which means that during the 80-ish year period of 'oppression' they get one more doubling, i.e. the population starts to pass the 4 million mark, and this happens maybe 30-40 years (or one and a bit reigns) into the 'oppression', prompting the short-lived and abortive attempt at culling by the second Pharaoh during the period. The Egyptians were, according to the Book of Jasher, progressively freed of their taxation and compulsory work obligation as these were shifted onto the Hebrews, so probably had a population spurt of their own, I am guessing to 3 or 3.5 million by the time of the Exodus. The Egyptian concerns about being outnumbered seem to have lifted somewhat by this point.
Then come the catastrophic 'plagues' which precede the Exodus. Moses, aged maybe 60 by this time, has reappeared, does his stuff and off go the Hebrews heading out to their new home, meeting and fending off the 'Amalekites' en route. (Egypt suffers rather more at the hands of these 'Amalekites' or Amu.) Both populations are greatly diminished by the events preceding the Exodus, and neither recovers for quite some time, but the Hebrews still manage to leave with 600,000 men fit to fight ('military age' might be a bit elastic given traditional Hebrew longevity to this point).
While Old Testament numbers may not have been intended as serious scientific data, one can draw a coherent picture from them, and one which also answers the question of whether the Hebrews stayed 215 years or 430 years in Egypt. Simply by applying rudimentary demographics, it has to be 430 years, and the numbers actually work out rather well. (It also enables us to evaluate the family tree in Exodus 6:15-20 as genealogical fiction.)
So I would not dismiss the numbers we are given.
Not particularly expert in these matters but 3% seems a bit on the high side given the sorts of historical growth figures for premodern societies. The long term averages seem to be 0.1% or less.
I'm a bit more familiar with expressions of infant mortality or life expectancy at birth as a population gauge - what sort of figures for these would your 3% model be yielding?
Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2015, 02:50:39 PM
Not particularly expert in these matters but 3% seems a bit on the high side given the sorts of historical growth figures for premodern societies. The long term averages seem to be 0.1% or less.
I'm a bit more familiar with expressions of infant mortality or life expectancy at birth as a population gauge - what sort of figures for these would your 3% model be yielding?
The point about doubling time is that one does not need to consider these: only the time period it takes for a population to double - which is why demographers use doubling time, because birth and death rates are often hard to substantiate or even guess at while doubling time is immediately obvious. However we can make a guess.
If we look at the UK population over time (chart here (http://chartsbin.com/view/28k)) we see that 6,000,000 in 1642 has become 12,596,803 by 1811 - a doubling time of 169 years (actually slightly less because 1811 is double-and-a-twelfth). Then the population leaps to 20,893,584 in 1821; 24,028,584 in 1831 and 26,709,456 in 1841. Doubling since shortly before 1811 (12 million) occurs by 1831 (24 million), giving a doubling time of a little over 20 years. The next doubling occurs between 1921 (44,024,091) and 1946 (48,939,000), say 1940-ish, for a doubling time of 99 years.
The doubling time during the early 19th century - interestingly, before many of the really significant advances in hygiene and sanitation - is much quicker than in preceding and succeeding eras. Given that in c.1811-1831 we had a doubling time of slightly over 20 years, I see no reason to grudge the Hebrews, who were let loose on the best land in Egypt without let or hindrance and who had a culture of large families, a general doubling time of 23 years. They could have done this with birth, death and infant mortality rates not dissimilar to those of Great Britain in the early 19th century.
Sustained doubling is another matter, as with increasing population size the doubling rate tends to fall off considerably. However the Hebrews were a comparatively small population for most of their stay in Egypt, and did not have the attrition of wars or the burdens of taxation and compulsory labour to worry about until they had grown to match the population of Egypt (which itself would have proceeded along a rather more leisurely doubling time). I assume the doubling time starts to lengthen considerably once these burdens are imposed.
Hope that makes sense.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 15, 2015, 02:50:39 PM
Not particularly expert in these matters but 3% seems a bit on the high side given the sorts of historical growth figures for premodern societies. The long term averages seem to be 0.1% or less.
I'm a bit more familiar with expressions of infant mortality or life expectancy at birth as a population gauge - what sort of figures for these would your 3% model be yielding?
The other problem is that whilst the initial 70 might have been "settled in the best land in Egypt, tax free and with nothing initially to do except breed like rabbits and live long lifespans, I gave them a benchmark doubling time of 23 years to reflect these ideal conditions."
But unless you assume continuing preferential treatment for a number of generations (and why would Egyptians be dispossessed from the 'best land in Egypt' forty years after Joseph's day?) these factors very soon fade into insignificance.
To achieve these factors you have to assume a progressive programme of dispossessing native Egyptians in favour of Israelites which continued for multiple generations.
Edited to add that if you accept the figures in the source, it would be entirely inconsistent to deny the other details in the source, so you end up with population collapse in the last few years due to total lack of males born after a certain date (but a date that is at least forty, and perhaps eighty (following the same data source) years before the figures we have for their manpower
Jim
I know very little about this topic, but a quick google suggests the hieroglyph numerals peaked out at one million, with the image of the God of Eternity (infinity?). This might suggest that at about this level they were saying little more than "many". Only slightly more generously, perhaps we can say we are getting specific information about the order of magnitude?
Thanks for the explanation Patrick. A few points arise for me. One, as Jim has already pointed out, is the whole narrative. The Hebrews start off as a small, favoured group but end up as a subject people engaged in manual labour like brick making. How quick is the transition and what impact will it have?
Secondly, I think you need a better model to justify those enormous growth figures. Tax free status and the best land doesn't sweep away disease and inadequate medical care. So, while infant mortality rates, or maternal mortality or other such are not strictly necessary, some thinking on them is helpful in not being a "pick a number" activity. What part does continued nomadism play, for example, in terms of population shifts?
On your historical doubling rate example, why choose the rate of a fast urbanising country with growing industrialisation, as opposed to the more agrarian period before it? Why indeed chose that rather than estimates from elsewhere and elsewhen in the Ancient period? Even today, few modern third world countries seem to reach a sustained 3% growth rate.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 16, 2015, 07:47:53 AM
Thanks for the explanation Patrick. A few points arise for me. One, as Jim has already pointed out, is the whole narrative. The Hebrews start off as a small, favoured group but end up as a subject people engaged in manual labour like brick making. How quick is the transition and what impact will it have?
Fortunately we have a source - the Book of Jesher - which allows us to pin this down with reasonable exactitude. The Hebrews are not subjected to such mundane tasks (which were part of the ordinary obligations of Egyptian citizens) until the last three reigns of the 13th Dynasty. In the first of these reigns (Dudimose I Djedhotepre) they are subjected to a 10% tax (previously nothing) while the Egyptians pay the same (previously 20%). In the second, much the same, except for a brief - apparently less than a year - culling of Hebrew male children (which was rather less than 100% efficient) and the imposition of the same work obligations as for Egyptians. In the third and last reign (Dudimose II Djedneferre) the Hebrews have the entire tax burden (20%) and work obligation thrust upon them while the Egyptians pay and do nothing - which incidentally explains why Pharaoh was so reluctant to let the Hebrews go when Moses asked: the Pharaoh (who was a usurper) had built his entire popularity base on abolishing taxes and work obligations for the Egyptians and loading them onto the Hebrews. Being faced with the prospective departure of the entire tax-paying population adequately explains why he dug in his heels until the people of Egypt clamoured for him to let the Hebrews go.
Exactly what impact this had was not recorded in detail, but the Hebrews did not like it at all, and I would guess that it sapped their vigour. Our sources note that the Hebrew population went on increasing, but that is not difficult once one gets to the numbers I estimate: even with a significant drop in net increase rate the population still rises quite noticeably.
Quote
Secondly, I think you need a better model to justify those enormous growth figures. Tax free status and the best land doesn't sweep away disease and inadequate medical care. So, while infant mortality rates, or maternal mortality or other such are not strictly necessary, some thinking on them is helpful in not being a "pick a number" activity. What part does continued nomadism play, for example, in terms of population shifts?
Which is why I take the comparison of early 19th century Britain - 1811 to 1836 saw the industrial revolution getting under way with all that meant in terms of deprivation and insanitary living conditions, disease, inadequate medical care, mortality rates, etc. And yet a doubling time of 25 years or slightly less was achieved. Compared with early 19th century Britain, I think the Hebrews in Egypt were on to a good thing: it would be tempting to give them a shorter doubling time, but I wanted to be conservative in my estimates.
Nomadism is unlikely to have played any part in the growth of the Hebrew population: having settled in Egypt by special favour, there they stayed, and the Egyptians were generally not keen on letting nomad types into the country.
Quote
On your historical doubling rate example, why choose the rate of a fast urbanising country with growing industrialisation, as opposed to the more agrarian period before it? Why indeed chose that rather than estimates from elsewhere and elsewhen in the Ancient period?
The reason is that we have accurate records for Britain from AD 1811 onwards. I prefer accurate records, where available, to estimates, which can be questioned (and are being questioned ;)).
As for fast urbanisation, coincidentally we see this at Tell el-Daba, the old Biblical city of Ramses (Goshen) in the Nile delta. The Asiatic (Syro-Canaanitic) population grows very rapidly during the 13th Dynasty period.
QuoteEven today, few modern third world countries seem to reach a sustained 3% growth rate.
Well, here is one of them (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/pakistan-population/). Note that it has a sustained doubling time of 25 years despite the drop in net increase rate, which itself seems to result from attempts to slow the growth in population.
Book of Jesher?
The problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be any manuscript older than the 16th century does there?
Quote from: Dangun on March 16, 2015, 01:08:53 AM
I know very little about this topic, but a quick google suggests the hieroglyph numerals peaked out at one million, with the image of the God of Eternity (infinity?). This might suggest that at about this level they were saying little more than "many". Only slightly more generously, perhaps we can say we are getting specific information about the order of magnitude?
From what I can see, the customary way of expressing a non-specific very large number goes something like this:
"
I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore." - Genesis 22:17
Having a numeral for one million allows one to express two million to nine million simply by scribing two to nine of the 'million' symbol. This suggests that nobody in Egypt felt the need to express a number as high as ten million. :)
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 16, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
Book of Jesher?
The problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be any manuscript older than the 16th century does there?
Well ... the book (also referred to as the Book of Jasher, which results in it being confused with the actual Book of Jasher) was supposedly transcribed or translated from an original by Alcuin, who took it back to Charlemagne. All I know is that it contains quite a bit of useful information which is illuminating for the period - plus a few slight anomalies, e.g. the idea that Caleb 'invented' the bow. It is useful rather than perfect, but the information therein makes sense.
The Book of Jasher is a long collection of stories, some more believable than others - and one of which is partly repeated in the Joseph Sura in the Koran. It also provides some interesting information, mainly peripheral rather than central, e.g. statements that Hebrews on occasion accompanied Egyptian armies on their campaigns, which helps to explain how it is that when "
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel at Rephidim," the Hebrews were able to put up a fight rather than being massacred out of hand - some of them had military experience. The Book of Jesher also confirms that they brought weapons with them.
For an online copy of The Book of Jasher see http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/index.htm
The problem I have with it is that I cannot trace it earlier than 1500
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/apocryphal-writings-and-latter-day-saints/15-book-jasher-and-latter-day-saints
"What was this Book of Jasher being published in New York in 1840? It was the first printing of the English translation of an old Hebrew work entitled Sefer Hayasher. The work was first published in Hebrew in Venice, Italy, in 1625.[16] No known early or complete manuscripts for the book are extant, but one is mentioned in early Hebrew bibliographies as having been used by the first-edition printers.[17] It has been asserted that this work was first published in 1552 or 1613 in Naples,[18] but no known extant copy of such an edition has been found.
This Sefer Hayashar has appeared in at least thirty-two Hebrew editions or printings. I have non-critically examined a number of these various Hebrew printings and have found them to be apparently of the same text.[19] The first known translation from the Hebrew appeared in the Yiddish or Judaeo-German language by Jacob B. Jermiah Mattithialevi and was first published in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1674.[20] A number of editions of this translation have also appeared through the years. In 1732 Johann Georg Abicht published the Book of Jasher in Latin in Leipzig.[21] His studies on this writing had been published earlier.[22] A French translation appeared in 1858, the work of Paul L. B. Drach.[23] The first English translation of Sefer Hayashar was published in 1840 in New York by Mordecai Manuel Noah.[24] He was not the translator, as some have asserted, but rather co-publisher with a Jewish printer of the day, Alexander S. Gould.[25] Mr. Noah was a prominent Jewish journalist, politician, writer, and publisher of his day. He has been characterized as "probably the most influential Jew in post-Revolutionary America."[26] It appears that Mr. Noah purchased the translation from England. The translator chose to remain anonymous because of the unfavorable climate created in his country by the publication of a Book of Jasher in Bristol in 1829, which also claimed to be the missing book mentioned in the scriptures.[27] This other Jasher had been first published in London in 1751, and its reappearance in 1829 caused a stir and considerable debate. Scholarly evaluation of this other Jasher exposed it as a fraudulent fictitious work which is most often referred to today as Pseudo-Jasher.[28] It was widely circulated and accepted in England, creating difficulties not unlike the problems we are reviewing here, and it was even confused with the Hebrew (Jewish) Book of Jasher which we are considering.[29] This controversy and debate continued there until the latter part of the nineteenth century.[30] It should be noted that this other Jasher is the one accepted and published by the Rosicrucian Order since 1934.[31]"
So I suppose we have to ask which Jasher?
Jim
I should point out that the 'Book of Jasher' mentioned in "
The translator chose to remain anonymous because of the unfavorable climate created in his country by the publication of a Book of Jasher in Bristol in 1829, which also claimed to be the missing book mentioned in the scriptures." is in fact the Book of Jesher, the son of Caleb, who is coincidentally the central figure in that particular book.
Dave has the correct Book of Jasher, and better that it reappear in 1625 or whatever than not at all.
It seems that it was widely known during the 7th century AD because the following story of Joseph in Jasher 44:
Quote23 And Zelicah desired Joseph in her heart, that he should lie with her, and at the time that Joseph was sitting in the house doing his work, Zelicah came and sat before him, and she enticed him daily with her discourse to lie with her, or ever to look at her, but Joseph would not hearken to her.
24 And she said unto him, If thou wilt not do according to my words, I will chastise thee with the punishment of death, and put an iron yoke upon thee.
25 And Joseph said unto her, Surely God who created man looseth the fetters of prisoners, and it is he who will deliver me from thy prison and from thy judgment.
26 And when she could not prevail over him, to persuade him, and her soul being still fixed upon him, her desire threw her into a grievous sickness.
27 And all the women of Egypt came to visit her, and they said unto her, Why art thou in this declining state? thou that lackest nothing; surely thy husband is a great and esteemed prince in the sight of the king, shouldst thou lack anything of what thy heart desireth?
28 And Zelicah answered them, saying, This day it shall be made known to you, whence this disorder springs in which you see me, and she commanded her maid servants to prepare food for all the women, and she made a banquet for them, and all the women ate in the house of Zelicah.
29 And she gave them knives to peel the citrons to eat them, and she commanded that they should dress Joseph in costly garments, and that he should appear before them, and Joseph came before their eyes and all the women looked on Joseph, and could not take their eyes from off him, and they all cut their hands with the knives that they had in their hands, and all the citrons that were in their hands were filled with blood.
30 And they knew not what they had done but they continued to look at the beauty of Joseph, and did not turn their eyelids from him.
31 And Zelicah saw what they had done, and she said unto them, What is this work that you have done? behold I gave you citrons to eat and you have all cut your hands.
32 And all the women saw their hands, and behold they were full of blood, and their blood flowed down upon their garments, and they said unto her, this slave in your house has overcome us, and we could not turn our eyelids from him on account of his beauty.
is referred to in the Joseph Sura (Sura 12) in the Koran:
Quote[12:30] Some women in the city gossiped: "The governor's wife is trying to seduce her servant. She is deeply in love with him. We see that she has gone astray."
[12:31] When she heard of their gossip, she invited them, prepared for them a comfortable place, and gave each of them a knife. She then said to him, "Enter their room." When they saw him, they so admired him, that they cut their hands.* They said, "Glory be to GOD, this is not a human being; this is an honorable angel."
A further detail in the Joseph Sura:
Quote[12:24] She almost succumbed to him, and he almost succumbed to her, if it were not that he saw a proof from his Lord. We thus diverted evil and sin away from him, for he was one of our devoted servants.
[12:25] The two of them raced towards the door, and, in the process, she tore his garment from the back. They found her husband at the door. She said, "What should be the punishment for one who wanted to molest your wife, except imprisonment or a painful punishment?"
[12:26] He said, "She is the one who tried to seduce me." A witness from her family suggested: "If his garment is torn from the front, then she is telling the truth and he is a liar.
[12:27] "And if his garment is torn from the back, then she lied, and he is telling the truth."
[12:28] When her husband saw that his garment was torn from the back, he said, "This is a woman's scheme. Indeed, your scheming is formidable.
[12:29] "Joseph, disregard this incident. As for you (my wife), you should seek forgiveness for your sin. You have committed an error."
seems to have its origin in Jasher 44:
Quote52 And Joseph returned and came to the house, and passed from thence to the place of his seat, and he sat down to do his master's work as usual and behold Zelicah came to him and stood before him in princely garments, and the scent from her clothes was spread to a distance.
53 And she hastened and caught hold of Joseph and his garments, and she said unto him, As the king liveth if thou wilt not perform my request thou shalt die this day, and she hastened and stretched forth her other hand and drew a sword from beneath her garments, and she placed it upon Joseph's neck, and she said, Rise and perform my request, and if not thou diest this day.
54 And Joseph was afraid of her at her doing this thing, and he rose up to flee from her, and she seized the front of his garments, and in the terror of his flight the garment which Zelicah seized was torn, and Joseph left the garment in the hand of Zelicah, and he fled and got out, for he was in fear.
55 And when Zelicah saw that Joseph's garment was torn, and that he had left it in her hand, and had fled, she was afraid of her life, lest the report should spread concerning her, and she rose up and acted with cunning, and put off the garments in which she was dressed, and she put on her other garments.
56 And she took Joseph's garment, and she laid it beside her, and she went and seated herself in the place where she had sat in her illness, before the people of her house had gone out to the river, and she called a young lad who was then in the house, and she ordered him to call the people of the house to her.
57 And when she saw them she said unto them with a loud voice and lamentation, See what a Hebrew your master has brought to me in the house, for he came this day to lie with me.
58 For when you had gone out he came to the house, and seeing that there was no person in the house, he came unto me, and caught hold of me, with intent to lie with me.
59 And I seized his garments and tore them and called out against him with a loud voice, and when I had lifted up my voice he was afraid of his life and left his garment before me, and fled.
60 And the people of her house spoke nothing, but their wrath was very much kindled against Joseph, and they went to his master and told him the words of his wile.
61 And Potiphar came home enraged, and his wife cried out to him, saying, What is this thing that thou hast done unto me in bringing a He. brew servant into my house, for he came unto me this day to sport with me; thus did he do unto me this day.
62 And Potiphar heard the words of his wife, and he ordered Joseph to be punished with severe stripes, and they did so to him.
63 And whilst they were smiting him, Joseph called out with a loud voice, and he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and he said, O Lord God, thou knowest that I am innocent of all these things, and why shall I die this day through falsehood, by the hand of these uncircumcised wicked men, whom thou knowest?
64 And whilst Potiphar's men were beating Joseph, he continued to cry out and weep, and there was a child there eleven months old, and the Lord opened the mouth of the child, and he spake these words before Potiphar's men, who were smiting Joseph, saying,
65 What do you want of this man, and why do you do this evil unto him? my mother speaketh falsely and uttereth lies; thus was the transaction.
66 And the child told them accurately all that happened, and all the words of Zelicah to Joseph day after day did he declare unto them.
67 And all the men heard the words of the child and they wondered greatly at the child's words, and the child ceased to speak and became still.
68 And Potiphar was very much ashamed at the words of his son, and he commanded his men not to beat Joseph any more, and the men ceased beating Joseph.
69 And Potiphar took Joseph and ordered him to be brought to justice before the priests, who were judges belonging to the king, in order to judge him concerning this affair.
70 And Potiphar and Joseph came before the priests who were the king's judges, and he said unto them, Decide I pray you, what judgment is due to a servant, for thus has he done.
71 And the priests said unto Joseph, Why didst thou do this thing to thy master? and Joseph answered them, saying, Not so my lords, thus was the matter; and Potiphar said unto Joseph, Surely I entrusted in thy hands all that belonged to me, and I withheld nothing from thee but my wife, and how couldst thou do this evil?
72 And Joseph answered saying, Not so my lord, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, my lord, the word which thou didst hear from thy wife is untrue, for thus was the affair this day.
73 A year has elapsed to me since I have been in thy house; hast thou seen any iniquity in me, or any thing which might cause thee to demand my life?
74 And the priests said unto Potiphar, Send, we pray thee, and let them bring before us Joseph's torn garment, and let us see the tear in it, and if it shall be that the tear is in front of the garment, then his face must have been opposite to her and she must have caught hold of him, to come to her, and with deceit did thy wife do all that she has spoken.
75 And they brought Joseph's garment before the priests who were judges, and they saw and behold the tear was in front of Joseph, and all the judging priests knew that she had pressed him, and they said, The judgment of death is not due to this slave for he has done nothing, but his judgment is, that he be placed in the prison house on account of the report, which through him has gone forth against thy wife.
although Mohammed has the story, or at least the tear in the garment, the wrong way round, plus some other details; he remembered the key role of a 'relative' but not what that role actually was.
I am not sure if any other source preserves this story and the ladies-cut-themselves-through-surprise one.
Actually it could as easily be a Hebrew document written in the 15th century using stuff from the Koran to pad out versions of the Old Testament.
Remember we have Josephus, Justin and Manetho
Also Jewish Literature produced an awful lot of Pseudepigrapha some of which were intended to be religious but some seem to have been mainly read for pleasure, some are comic.
There are plenty of possible Jewish sources that might have influenced both the Koran and Jasher, none of which need be earlier than the Christian era
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 30, 2015, 09:29:52 PM
There are plenty of possible Jewish sources that might have influenced both the Koran and Jasher, none of which need be earlier than the Christian era
The temptation is to say: "Name three of them!" ;)
At least we have moved back the date from 1625 to 'a possible Jewish source' rather earlier in 'the Christian era'. And the source of that source might be even earlier ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 30, 2015, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 30, 2015, 09:29:52 PM
There are plenty of possible Jewish sources that might have influenced both the Koran and Jasher, none of which need be earlier than the Christian era
The temptation is to say: "Name three of them!" ;)
At least we have moved back the date from 1625 to 'a possible Jewish source' rather earlier in 'the Christian era'. And the source of that source might be even earlier ...
Well actually your version doesn't go back before the 7th century.
The simplest explanation is that a Hebrew writer borrowed the ideas from the Koran. It is rather more convincing than the Book of Jasher mentioned in the Old Testament actually survived without anybody mentioning it
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 30, 2015, 09:50:39 PM
The simplest explanation is that a Hebrew writer borrowed the ideas from the Koran. It is rather more convincing than the Book of Jasher mentioned in the Old Testament actually survived without anybody mentioning it
I cannot honestly see that happening: the Koranic version is more condensed and inaccurate in detail, as if drawn from an enthusiastic but imperfect memory, while the Jasher version provides details which are missing in the Koranic version but which make sense (the provision of lemons, the priests acting as judges) and also, crucially, differs on where Joseph's garment was torn, which it would not do if simply borrowing from the Koran.
So the simplest explanation is that copies of the Book of Jasher disappeared from the shelves at some point between the Hegira and the Renaissance and one subsequently resurfaced. There were plenty of Jews around to preserve manuscripts the existence of which Christians would be unaware - and the said Jews, probably rabbinical guardians of archives rather than ordinary traders and moneylenders, would be in no haste to tell them. The transmission of the Book of Jasher is conceptually easier to explain than the transmission of the Black Death. ;)