ausewitz's theory of states and war can be reduced to three ideas which he defines, unfortunately for Christians, as a "remarkable trinity&qu

e of the objectives Clausewitz believed necessary for total victory were achieved.In summary, these brief examples of principles of war at the strategic and tactical level illustrate that foundational lessons of military art and science can be gleaned from a careful reading of the pages of the Old Testament. My admonishment to all scholars who write, teach, and conduct research on military affairs, including myself, is for us not to overlook the valuable and important lessons that can be learned from the pages of the Bible. The Bible is not only a book with moral and theological stories, it is about real people, and is a reliable history written in a cultural mileu that enhances our understanding of civilizations thousands of years ago. Valuable lessons about the principles and foundations of politics, military strategy and tactics, economics, ethics, and many other academic disciplines can be gleaned from a study of its pages. Such lessons are as applicable today as they were thousands of years ago. To consider only "recent" history and consider Biblical history as unreliable is narrow-minded and wrong, and scholars do so at their own risk. Recommended Resources for Further Study Bible and SpadeCD-ROM NIV ArchaeologicalStudy Bible FootnotesBarton Whaley comes to the same conclusion and argues that the contemporary Israeli Army and its commanders consciously draw military inspiration, wisdom and lore from the Bible, and the Old Testament teaches its share of stratagems of war (1969: 81).See also my letter to the editor, and his response, on pp. 7-8 of the same edition.BibliographyFerrill, A. 1985The Origins of War: From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great. London: Thames and Hudson. Gabriel, R., and Getz, K.S. 1991From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. New York: Greenwood. Gichon, M. 1985The West Bank: The Geostrategic and Historical Aspects. In The West Bank: Line of Defense, ed. Aryeh Shalev. New York: Praeger. Lemonick, M.D. 1995Are the Bible's Stories True? Time, December 18: 62-69. Malamat, A. 1979Conquest of Canaan: Israelite Conduct of War According to Biblical Tradition.



Cultural Change and the Confusion of Language in Ancient Sumer
This article was published in the Winter 2004 issue of Bible and Spade.One of the primary areas of the Near East where civilization began is the Tigris-Euphrates river valley, comprising portions of modern Syria and Iraq. This region, the fertile valley between the two rivers, has been known since the times of the ancient Greeks as Mesopotamia, literally “the land between the rivers.” This area of course was the home of many peoples familiar to us from general ancient history and the Old Testament, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians. Before these peoples a group known as the Sumerians, the creators of classic Mesopotamian culture, inhabited the southern part of the valley. How and when did civilization start in this region? In order to at least partially answer this question, we will need to examine both written and archaeological source material. The earliest of that archaeological material comes from cultures in the valley that did not as yet know the art of writing.Archaeological EvidenceIn looking at archaeological material from these early cultures, we must make several preliminary observations. First, we should remember that people sharing the same basic culture tend to produce similar and in some cases identical material objects. This trend is particularly apparent with pottery, the basic food and drink storage medium of ancient times. This trend is very helpful to the archaeologist. If he or she is digging in a ruined city and finds a certain style and color of pottery, this pottery can be compared to pottery found elsewhere. Connections can thus be established between the two sites sharing pottery styles. [Ed: These are known as parallels.]Such conclusions must of course be supported by other material finds, but such similarities can show how a particular culture spread over a geographical area.This leads to a second introductory observation. When archaeologists discover a particular culture, it is often given a name by modern scholars. Without written material, we have no idea what the people of that culture called themselves. This name is normally the modern Arabic place name of the site where the culture was discovered. It should never be thought that the “type-site” (the site which gives the culture its name) was necessarily the most important city of the culture, or the place where the culture began. It is simply the first place where modern humans have found an example of that particular culture.Finally, a word about dates. The best way to establish dates is to have written documents, and even then establishing chronology can be a complex and difficult business. For many periods of modern history we have such rich written material that basic dates are not a problem. We know beyond doubt, for example, that Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, that Lincoln was killed in 1865, and that the Emperor Augustus died in AD 14. But, when we deal with ancient Near Eastern history, precise dates can be more problematical. This is most true of the periods we call prehistory; the time beRosetta Stone Japanese

It is this calendar that provides a date for the entry

into Canaan that is in precise agreement with the 480th-year datum of 1 Kgs 6:1. When Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom is combined with a literal reading of 1 Kgs 6:1, the resulting dates for the exodus and conquest are in perfect accord with the multiple phenomena that have been cited related to the Jubilees and Sabbatical years. All this is explained by a thesis that is the quintessence of simplicity: Israel entered the Promised Land in 1406 bc with the only credible source for the Jubilee and Sabbatical-year legislation that has ever been postulated, the book of Leviticus, in its possession. II. HAWKINS’ ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS 1. First wrong archaeological argument: new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I (1200–1000 bc) signal the arrival of the Israelites. Surface surveys over the last four decades have revealed many new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I, ca. 1200–1000 bc. Hawkins reasons, “The implication seemed clear that a new population group had arrived in the Central Hill-Country during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I.”[46] He believes this to be evidence for the initial arrival of the Israelites in Canaan.[47] The Iron I settlement data, however, undermine Hawkins’s thesis since the material culture of the Iron I settlers exhibits continuity with the previous Late Bronze culture,[48] indicating they were not newcomers at all, but had been in the land for a considerable period of time.[49] This continuity is best seen in the pottery, but includes other material culture items as well. Mazar views the situation as follows: “The settlers had no traditions of their own in the realm of architecture, pottery, crafts, and art. These were adopted from their Canaanite neighbors…Later, when the manufacture of such objects began in the settlement regions themselves, the Canaanite tradition continued to make itself felt in the forms of the tools and vessels.”[50] The evidence indicates a long period of contact between the Iron I settlers and the previous Canaanite culture: The objects of the early Iron Age indicate complete dependence on the culture of the Late Bronze Age. Because the early Iron Age settlement cannot be regarded as an offshoot of the former Canaanite cities, this continuity is best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have already occurred in the Late Bronze Age before the beginning of sedentary life. . . . The results of archaeological research indicate early Iron Age culture was highly dependent upon Late Bronze Age culture and they preclude conquest of the country by new immigrants.[51] These observations accord with the biblical model based on an early exodus. The Israelites arrived in Canaan in 1406 bc and initially continued the lifestyle they had followed the previous forty years, that of semi-nomadic pastoralists: “Your sons shall be shepherds for forty years in the wilderness” (Num 14:33, NASB). After ca. 200 years they became sedentary around 1200 bc, as illustrated by the story of Gideon,[52] possibly due to economic factors.[53] 2. Second wrong archaeological argument: an Iron Age I structure found on Mt. Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–31. In the 1980s a structure was excavated on Mt. Ebal which the excavator, Adam Zertal, believes was the altar of Josh 8:30–31.[54] Hawkins avers, “If Zertal’s Iron I structure on Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–35, there could be important implications for the understanding of Israelite origins.”[55] He then devotes eight pages of his paper to justifying the use of two scarabs to date the earliest phase of the site. This is not the main issue, however, as there is general acceptance of the excavator’s dates for the site.[56] The question is, can the structure excavated by Zertal be associated with the altar of Josh 8:30–31? We shall examine three problems associated with this identification: date, location, and size. a. The chronological problem. There were two phases to the Mt. Ebal complex. Str. II was founded on bedrock, and consisted of fragmentary structures and installations, with evidence of cultic activity (intensive use of fire on the bedrock, ash, and many animal bones). This early phase is dated by the two Egyptian scarabs discussed in detail by Hawkins, and pottery, to 1240–1200 bc, i.e., the very end of the Late Bronze Age. In the early twelfth century, the beginning of the Iron Age I period, a large stone construction, interpreted as an altar, related structures, and a low encircling wall were built over Str. II. This phase, Str. IB, is dated by pottery to 1200–1130 bc. [57] In order to relate Zertal’s altar to Joshua, Hawkins, by necessity, must date the entry of Israel to ca. 1200 bc, the time when the altar was constructed.[58] This is later than most evangelicals who favor a late date would place the event.[59] Hawkins’s dating, in fact, cannot be sustained since Israel was well established in Canaan long before 1200 bc as demonstrated by the Iron I settlement data discussed above, and documented by the Merenptah Stele.[60] Thus, there is a chronological disconnect between the Israelite entry into Canaan and Zertal’s altar. b. The location problem. Prior to crossing the Jordan into Canaan, Moses gave these instructions to the Israelites: So it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall set up on Mount Ebal, these stones, as I am commanding you today, and you shall coat them with lime. Moreover, you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones; you shall not wield an iron tool on them. You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of uncut stones, and you shall offer on it burnt offerings to the Lord your God; and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there, and rejoice before the Lord your God. You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very distinctly. . . . Moses also charged the people on that day, saying, “When you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. For the curse, these shall stand on Mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. The Levites shall then answer and say to all the men of Israel with a loud voice . . .” (Deut 27:4–8, 11–14, NASB). Following the conquest of Jericho and Ai, Joshua carried out the commands of Moses: Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. He wrote there on the stones a copy of the laws of Moses, which he had written, in the presence of the sons of Israel. All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, the stranger as well as the native. Half of them stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had given command at first to bless the people of Israel. Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them (Josh 8:30–35, NASB). It is clear from these passages that the people were gathered in the narrow Shechem pass between Mt. Gerizim on the south and Mt. Ebal on the north for this covenant ceremony, and that they were able to see and hear all that was going on. Joshua constructed the altar Moses commanded on the north side of the pass, at/on Mt. Ebal.[61] Zertal’s altar, on the other hand, is located on the other side of the mountain, 3.2 km map distance north-northeast of the Shechem pass,[62] “on a low, stony ridge,

Rosetta Stone English

Roman anchors were made of wood and lead

As opposed to stone anchors of earlier periods. Douglas Haldane, a nautical archaeologist, has divided the wooden-anchor stocks into eight types (Haldane 1984: 1-13; 1990: 19-24, see diagram on page 21). Five of the types were used in the first century AD, Type IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, IVA and IVB (Haldane 1984: 3,13).The Type III anchors are made up of five parts (for pictures, see Bonanno 1992: Plate 67; Cornuke 2003: Plate 7, bottom). The main part is the wooden shank, usually made of oak, which has a lead stock across the upper part. Haldane subdivides the Type III anchors into three parts based on the design of lead stock. Type IIIA is made of "solid lead with no internal junction with the shank." Type IIIB is made of "solid lead with lead tenon through [the] shank." Type IIIC is made of "lead with [a] wooden core" (1984: 3). This core of wood, called a "soul," goes though the shank in order to pin the stock to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 51). On the bottom of the anchor are two wooden flukes, sometimes tipped with metal (usually copper and called a "tooth"), perpendicular to the anchor stock. A "collar" made of lead, sometimes called an "assembly piece," secures the flukes to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 52; Cornuke 2003: Plate 6, bottom; in the picture the collar is below the anchor stock).When an anchor is dropped into the sea, the heavy lead stock brings the anchor to the bottom of the sea. One fluke then digs into the sea bottom. The stock also keeps "the anchor cable pulling at the correct angle to the fluke" (Throckmorton 1972: 78).Mr. Cornuke concluded from his research that the anchors from an Alexandrian grain ship "would have been huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors common on huge freighters like the one Paul sailed on" (2002: 15).Nautical archaeologists and divers generally find only the anchor stocks and the collars and not the wooden parts because the wood rots in the sea. However, that is not always the case. Sometimes the wooden core, or "soul" still is found inside the stock. Wood can also be found in the collar (Kapitan 1969-71: 51, 53). In some cases the wood does not disintegrate. A case in point is the wooden anchor from a 2,400 year-old shipwreck off the coast of Ma’agan Mikhael in Israel (Rosloff 2003: 140-146).Sometimes lead anchor stocks have inscriptions or symbols on them. Symbols may be of "good luck (dolphins, caduceus), or related to the sea (shells) or apotropaic (Medusa head)." Also are found "numbers, names of divinities (= names of ships), e.g. Isis, Hera, Hercules, and rarely, names of men ... [that] may provide evidence for senatorial involvement in trade" (Gianfrotta 1980: 103, English abstract).One of the reasons antiquities laws are so tough is to prevent divers from looting sunken ships and removing, forever, valuable information such as the wood which could be used to carbon date the anchor and identify the type of wood used for making anchors. Some Israeli nautical archaeologists have begun to use carbon dating to date some of their shipwrecks (Kahanov and Royal 2001: 257; Nor 2002-2003: 15-17; 2004: 23). Archaeologists also work to maintain any inscriptional evidence on the anchor stock.For a brief survey of the recent developments in the maritime heritage of Malta, see Bonanno 1995: 105-110.The first anchor (#1) described in Mr. Cornuke’s book was found by Tony Micallef-Borg and Ray Ciancio in front of a big cave in the outer Munxar Reef at about 90 feet below the surface (2003: 101-105). When it was discovered in the early 1970’s, it was only half an anchor that was either "pulled apart like a piece of taffy" (2003: 121) or sawn in half with a hacksaw (2003: 231, footnote 18), depending on which eyewitness is most reliable. The recollection is that it was three or four feet long, with a large section cut off (2003: 102). The discoverers melted it down for lead weights not knowing its historical and archaeological value. One diver, Oliver Navarro, had two small weights with "MT" stamped on them for Tony Micallef-Borg. (Actually "MT" is the reverse image of Tony’s initials, see Plate 6, top). There is a drawing of the anchor at the top of Plate 7.Unfortunately, #1 was melted down. If it had been found in a controlled archaeological excavation and it contained an inscription, it would have been helpful in identifying the ship or its date.In a reconstruction of how the anchor stock was ripped apart, the author surmises that this was the first anchor thrown from the Apostle Paul’s ship and then "ravaged by the reef and the waves" (2003: 122, 123). The problem with this scenario is that a fluke goes into the seabed where it would serve to slow down the ship, not the anchor stock. If anything had been torn apart like taffy it would have been the collar, not the anchor stock, assuming the wooden fluke did not break first. More than likely, the anchor stock was sawn in half by means of a hacksaw by some unknown person in modern times.The second anchor (#2) was also found in the early 70’s and was a whole anchor stock found near anchor #1 (2003: 105-110). It was brought to shore by Tony Micallef-Borg, Ray Ciancio, Joe Navarro and David Inglott and taken to Cresta Quay (Cornuke 2003: 105, 106). It eventually came to rest in the courtyard of Tony Micallef-Borg’s villa."Tony's anchor" (2003: 125) is described by different people as a "large anchor stock" (2003: 106), a "huge anchor" (2003: 114), as a "large slab of lead" (2003: 126), and a "massive Roman anchor stock" (2003: 126). Unfortunately, unlike anchor stocks #1, #3, and #4, there are no measurements given in the book for this one. The only size indicators are the adjectives "large", "huge", and "massive."The reader viewing the photographs of anchors #2 and #3 on Plate 5 might get the impression that anchor #2 (bottom) was much larger than anchor #3 (top). The bottom picture was taken with the anchor on a bed sheet with nothing to indicate the actual size. Anchor #3 has three men squatting behind the anchor to give some perspective of size. The impression the reader would get is that anchor #2 is almost twice the size of anchor #3. If these anchors were published in a proper excavation report both anchors would have the same scale in front of them and the photograph of each anchor would be published to the same scale. It then would be seen that anchor #2 is considerably smaller than anchor #3.On Friday, January 14, 2005 and Monday, January 17, 2005 I visited the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa. "Tony’s anchor" was tagged "NMA Unp. #7/2 Q’mangia 19.11.2002." This anchor stock came from the village of Q’mangia and was handed over to the museum on November 19, 2002, only four days before the amnesty expired (2003: 223).The anchor stock was one of the smallest on display, measuring about 3 feet, 8 inches in length. Large Alexandrian grain ships would have had for the stern much larger anchors than this one. The author’s lack of quantifiable measurements regarding the anchor stock keeps the reader uninformed about its actual size. This anchor stock is a lead toothpick compared to "huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors" that Mr. Cornuke surmised would be on the ship (Cornuke 2002: 15).The "Museum Archaeological Report" for 1963 describes an anchor stock found off the coast of Malta. It was an "enormous Roman anchor stock lying on the sea bed 120 feet below the surface 300 yards off Qawra Point... its dimensions, 13 feet 6 inches long, were confirmed.... On the same occasion part of the same or another anchor, a collar of lead 84 cms. long, was retrieved from 25 feet away from the stock" (MAR 1963: 7; Fig. 6; Plate 3). It weighed 2,500 kg, which is two and a half metric tons! (Guillaumier 1992: 88). This anchor stock is the largest anchor stock ever found in the Mediterranean Sea and most likely came from an Alexandrian grain ship. It is in storage in the National Archaeological Museum in Valletta.

Rosetta Stone Chinese