Donate

Israeli Scientists Use a New Technique to Unveil Lost Letters

June 19 2017

For archaeologists studying the ancient Near East, ostraca—potsherds on which notes and letters were written in ink—provide a crucial source of information. While ostraca are far more durable than papyrus, scholars have long been aware that the ink on clay can fade easily. A group of applied mathematicians, physicists, and archaeologists at Tel Aviv University have devised a form of multispectral imaging that can detect such faded writing. And unlike similar techniques already in use, this one does not require advanced or expensive equipment. Amanda Borschel-Dan writes:

A corpus of 91 ostraca written on the eve of the kingdom of Judah’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE was unearthed at Tel Arad, west of the Dead Sea, in the 1960s. . . . Containing lists of supplies and orders from military quartermasters, the shards were of immeasurable value to the study of the Hebrew language and the sociology and economy of the time period.

Now, though, with the discovery of previously invisible words and even sentences on the “blank” reverse side of one of the first shards to be examined with the new technology, the pieces have become still more important. . . . [M]any shards previously thought of as blank have been summarily disposed of at digs or during artifact recording. . . .

[The decoded ostracon] is a letter sent to Elyashiv, [thought to be the quartermaster of a military fortress], from one Ḥananyahu—the team speculates he was a quartermaster in Beersheba—and discusses the transfer of silver. [The] newly discovered text shows that Ḥananyahu also asked for wine.

Read more at Times of Israel

More about: Ancient Israel, Archaeology, History & Ideas, Israeli technology

How the U.S. Can Strike at Iran without Risking War

In his testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Michael Doran urged the U.S. to pursue a policy of rolling back Iranian influence in the Middle East, and explained how this can be accomplished. (Video of the testimony, along with the full text, are available at the link below.)

The United States . . . has indirect ways of striking at Iran—ways that do not risk drawing the United States into a quagmire. The easiest of these is to support allies who are already in the fight. . . . In contrast to the United States, Israel is already engaged in military operations whose stated goal is to drive Iran from Syria. We should therefore ask ourselves what actions we might take to strengthen Israel’s hand. Militarily, these might include, on the passive end of the spectrum, positioning our forces so as to deter Russian counterattacks against Israel. On the [more active] end, they might include arming and training Syrian forces to engage in operations against Iran and its proxies—much as we armed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Diplomatically, the United States might associate itself much more directly with the red lines that Israel has announced regarding the Iranian presence in Syria. Israel has, for example, called for pushing Iran and its proxies away from its border on the Golan Heights. Who is prepared to say that Washington has done all in its power to demonstrate to Moscow that it fully supports this goal? In short, a policy of greater coordination with Jerusalem is both possible and desirable.

In Yemen, too, greater coordination with Saudi Arabia is worth pursuing. . . . In Lebanon and Iraq, conditions will not support a hard rollback policy. In these countries the goal should be to shift the policy away from a modus vivendi [with Iran] and in the direction of containment. In Iraq, the priority, of course, is the dismantling of the militia infrastructure that the Iranians have built. In Lebanon, [it should be] using sanctions to force the Lebanese banking sector to choose between doing business with Hizballah and Iran and doing business with the United States and its financial institutions. . . .

Iran will not take a coercive American policy sitting down. It will strike back—and it will do so cleverly. . . . It almost goes without saying that the United States should begin working with its allies now to develop contingency plans for countering the tactics [Tehran is likely to use]. I say “almost” because I know from experience in the White House that contingency planning is something we extol much more than we conduct. As obvious as these tactics [against us] are, they have often taken Western decision makers by surprise, and they have proved effective in wearing down Western resolve.

Read more at Hudson

More about: Iran, Israeli Security, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, U.S. Foreign policy, Yemen