Form-3 Books

This book is like a series of "Where's Waldo" games. There are a series of scenes, each spread across the seam between two pages, including Dizzyland, California, U.S.A.; Sydney, Australia; and Barcelona, Spain. Each scene contains certain people (such as "Bin Baby", his Ladketeers, and NSA Agent Dorsch and Patty Furst) and items (such as a scimitar, a landmine, a machinegun and a United Nations Map of Installations of Mass Destruction), as well as people and items specific to the scene, such as snails and frogs in France; bulls in Spain; and killer koalas, crocodiles and kangaroos in Australia!

Someone donated a copy of this book to the troops here in Iraq, and several soldiers were passing it around when I discovered it and liked it so much, that I ordered a copy of my own!

It provided me with plenty of entertainment while waiting in airports/at airbases on my way to and from the U.S.A. for my mid-tour leave, and I still haven't looked for Bin Baby in all of the scenes!

I saw this book on the shelf and was immediately attracted to it thinking, wow has someone done a parody of the Where's Wally series replacing Wally (Waldo, North America) with the hide and seek champion coward Osama Bin Laden. That's exactly what this book is, in fact you not only have to find Osama, but a number of his henchmen as well, who are hiding in all the major cities around the world, New York, Paris, Sydney, Cairo to name but a few. It is also not just the bad guys the reader has to find. The concept of the humour of this book is playing on the fact that America can't find Osama, so you also have to find the American secret service agent as well, who obviously since he can't find the highest profile person on the planet may need help finding himself. You'll also need to find hidden weapons of mass destruction and other objects

Obviously extremist patriotic Americans with no sense of humour will not get the joke that is the concept of Where's Bin Laden but everyone else including most other Americans will have at least a smile on their faces when they first see this book. It is pretty much the same thing visually as the Where's Wally books if you just want it for the find an image amongst a lot large more complicated visual image, so if you were going to get one of those books but want a laugh as well I'd get this instead.

Each of the cities portrayed has a small blurb on why they are now terrorist targets such as Sydney because Australia supported the USA in invading Iraq so obviously the author has certain views that you may or may not agree with, but you can just ignore those text boxes and enjoy the book purely for its visual humour anyway.

The book achieves what it sets out to. I have no idea if Daniel Lalic is the Weird Al Yankovic of the picture book world. I can't compare it to other books of his as this is the only one I've ever come across. I can say though that without a doubt, if you take a copy of this to your workplace or wherever else, everyone will want to have a look at it. Many people will ask where did you get this? So if you have read it and shown it to everyone you know, you'll have no problem selling it onto someone else who wants to show it to their friends and getting your money back. Get a copy and check it out, it's a good laugh!

Milkstones and pollen fields, houses and ships, wax chambers and staircases - Wolfgang Laib goes back to the archaic roots of religious feelings with perseverance.

He is crossing the frontiers of time and country, of religion and philosophy - and he is a pathfinder of the bridges between each other.

You can find the symbol of the ship (the river "Styx") in many cultures, also the staircase monuments, trying to reach the sky (Jacob's ladders or pyramides) - no matter if it is an Indian, Egyptian or South American sky.

Ritual performances like pouring out something wet like water or milk or pollen (pollen, collected in small pouches, is used by North American Navajos) is often a part of diverse lifestyles. You have to wash, if you enter a moshee, you will use water, if you enter a Roman Catholic church. With milk everyone starts his life.

If we enter a "beeswax house sculpture" of Wolfgang Laib, we have something to smell, our sense of hearing is lessened and our skin is stimulated.

Margit Rowell, former chief curator at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, did the right thing, supporting this German artist, a mixture of Andy Goldsworthy and Joseph Beuys, Christo or Moore, trying to create visual basic subjects, helping us to contact our inner life.

This is the best of the numerous books that have come out on Wolfgang Laib in the last fifteen years. The essays are good, especially the one by Margit Rowell which places Laib in a historical perspective that doesn't only rely on the standard references of eastern thought. The book also contains a good timeline with pictures of things that have influenced Laib as well as images from previous shows. Many of the pieces and photographs have appeared in other publications but this is probably the most comprehensive. A marvelous artist who doesn't jibe with the times but whose vision is an antidote for much that is wrong in the art world.

one of my favorites. a hilarious compilation of essays and excerpts from the funniest female writers all through history.

I only wish there was a sequel

I love this artist, she is such an innovator, she rocks my world and as a young Japanese canadian artist i am highly influnced by her.

This book is absolutely gorgeous. I didn't know many of the artist's works before I bought this book - and it gave me a good understanding of her life and work. Chock full of beautiful colour photos. It's cool too because so many quality art books cost a fortune, but since this one is a softcover it's reasonably priced. As you can tell, I HIGHLY recommend this book.

can i have a joke book i want to play tricks on my friend it's fonna be good please send me one.

"4 Dada Suicides" is a novelty of a book if ever there was one. Sad to say, since none of these guys would have wanted just to be novelties. We have Jacques Rigaut, the morbid dandy who, according to the man who employed him for awhile, was not quite the dadaist rebel he played at being; Arthur Cravan, perhaps the highlight of the book, with his intoxicated adventures and bitingly witty dismissal of just about everything! With Cravan, more so than Torma or Vache, one gets the sense of a man who could have been so much more than merely a scandalous figure who scribbled some opiated aphorisms. Torma is a trip too, however, his creepily composed and pale phantom haunting the black and white pages with telling lines:"Perfection is mediocrity. Only excess is beautiful". And we have the infamous Jacques Vache, goofing off to Breton about the state of his own health and his possible impending death (or not).

This is sort of an epitaph for four men who represented, in one way or another, the final "No" to values finally proved false. One wonders, though, while being awed by their enigmatic rebellion against society and art, whether they would have had anything to say had they not offed themselves so very quickly. THIS however is the most bizarre book I have yet to encounter from Atlas Press, and that's saying something. Beyond a must read, the ever sharpening sense of the edge and the immediacy of our lives in the face of death makes this a must have, right now. Read it.

An essential, complete and comprehensive, single volume reference, "The Academic Library manager's Forms, Policies, And Procedures Handbook With CD-ROM" by experienced professional librarian Rebecca Brumley (currently with the Navarro College Library at the Waxahachie and Midlothian campuses in Texas, and a consultant to small libraries and communities on policy and procedure manuals) is specifically designed and intended to meet the needs of academic librarians select the best policies and procedures in over 300 different areas of library science and practice. Featuring examples of forms, policies and procedures ranging from mission and vision statements, to staff standards, to behavior guidelines, to special use rooms, to library incident forms, to collection and purchasing guidelines, and a great deal more, "The Academic Library manager's Forms, Policies, And Procedures Handbook With CD-ROM" should be considered an essential reference guide for library staff members and managers working in two-year colleges, four-year liberal arts schools, public and private universities and colleges, as well as research universities. Of special value is the accompanying CD-ROM with all of the forms readily available for customizing and reproduction.

11 th May 1999, Brussels Dear Madam Elizabeth See Watson, I have to ask for you any questions over your book "Achille Bocchi" - firstly : Achille Bocchi , was he a count or a count palatine? If yes , can you give me her coat of arms (description) - secondly : Had he been children : sons,daughters ? Had he been brothers ,sisters? - thirdly : you have written a book over Achille Bocchi in english , does it exist in french ? where can I to buy in Belgium ? Yours faithfully PS : can I give me your e.mail , dear Madam, thanks you

Admonition And Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships by Noel Weeks (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series: T. & T. Clark Publishers)Excerpt: In the history of scholarship focus changes from decade to decade. Topics become popular: topics fade from popularity. The reasons for such changes are complex and outside of the main interests of this work. What is significant is that they may fade from view before there has been a definitive resolution, or the resolution reached may be faulty. Yet who wants to return to an old, tired and exhausted topic?
A number of arguments can he raised in defense of revisiting the no ¬longer-fashionable. Often it is only in retrospect that the unexamined assumptions which prevented resolution become clear. While the topic may have been dropped those very assumptions may linger on to influence other debates which may also end without proper resolution. It may even be that the old topic needs to be revisited, not so much for the original topic's sake. hut so that the lurking assumptions might become the focus.
As the bibliography of this work illustrates, the topic of treaty and covenant was a major concern of Ancient Near Eastern scholarship in the 1950s, 1960s. After that it virtually disappears. While some primary texts continue to emerge and to undermine older claims, the topic is sufficiently dead that corrected versions of older theses fail to appear.
The reasons for the changing fashions are complex. Two may he mentioned here but many more might be conjectured. First, the increasing specialization of the field discourages explorations which of' their very nature are comparative. Second, as will emerge clearly, much of the interest stemmed from attempts to resolve certain issues in the biblical field. When these issues appeared to he resolved in other ways. the topic lost its immediate relevance.
The focus of the older investigation was not just on treaties as such: it was on treaties of a definite and fixed form. For it is not hard to argue that treaty making could well arise independently in different cultures. If there was independent origin, then similarities are more psychologically significant than historically significant. They point to the tendency of the human mind to create similar solutions to similar problems.
Only towards the end of the period of discussion did the suggestion of independent origin arise. The failure to investigate this possibility initially was probably connected to the history of the discussion. It began with the observation of significant similarities between biblical covenants and Hittite treaties on the one side and Assyrian treaties on the other. These similarities were seen as sufficient in each case to postulate a real historical link. From there it was a short step to the belief that there was a common treaty covenant pattern throughout the Ancient Near East. That the links were real and historical did not need to he argued because the discovery of commonness was the starting point of the whole investigation.
However there was a question which might have been posed at the beginning. Is not the commonness with respect to treaty form in itself surprising? What is the historical explanation for it? In many other respects the cultures of the area show diverse forms. Why is this element common over such an expanse of space and time?
One may suggest various reasons for the non-asking of the obvious question but the most likely reasons are that answers already existed or were perceived to exist in commonly accepted positions. There was a general tendency to suggest Mesopotamia as the origin of culture in the region. If the treaty form was common and if some of our earliest attested examples came from Mesopotamia, then the obvious solution was that it had originated in Mesopotamia and spread from there, that treaties from different areas showed differences was not an obstacle to this explanation because those differences could be ascribed to development over time. The fact that the large collections of relatively securely dated treaties came from two distinct locations in time and space made such an explanation plausible. They were the second-millennium Hittite treaties and the first-millennium Assyrian treaties. Similarities between these two groups and between each group and biblical covenants could he ascribed to the common origin of the treaty form. Differences were seen as a consequence of development over time so that one would expect second-millennium treaties to differ from first-millennium ones. Such differences could then be used to date the biblical covenants whose dating was controversial. Thus the similarities of treaties became not a problem to be investigated in its own right but a given which was assumed to be uncontroversial. The controversial aspect of the debate became the way in which arguments from treaties were inserted into controversies regarding the dating of portions of the biblical text.
Returning to the topic after a hiatus, what are the questions which must he posed? The obvious one is whether the similarity of form is of such a nature that a common origin, of some sort, must be postulated - that is, a historical common origin as opposed to similarities which might be ascribed to similar situations. Immediately we confront the problem that there is no objective answer to such questions. Does X look similar enough to Y to exclude accidental resemblance and prove historical connection? Whether we ask the question for a literary form or an artistic style we confront the same difficulty. Convincing similarity is in the eye of the beholder.
It is my conviction that there is enough similarity between treaty/ covenant forms from different cultures that one is justified in asking historical questions about that similarity. The attempts to argue to the contrary will be dealt with in the appropriate place later.
Taking the similarity as real, two questions follow. One concerns the original source. Yet asking the question in that simple form might lead to a misleading answer. It is tempting to find the earliest attested reference to a treaty and to make that the source. Given the origin and dating of extant written texts, that narrows the options to a few civilizations.
This problem interconnects with another. While the similarities in treaty forms are real, there are also differences. How are the differences to be explained? Obvious models spring to mind: transformations imposed by the different cultures which took over the treaty form concept; the process of change through time; the invention of forms unrelated to the original form. When these possibilities are combined with the question of the ultimate origin of treaties they generate a further set of quandaries. Are our oldest extant treaties close to the original source or are they already significant transformations of the original? Our oldest treaties or references to treaties are in written form. Was there an earlier oral stage?
What balances similarity and difference? It will be argued below that there are styles of treaty which are characteristic for a particular civilization and that these styles change over time. And yet the underlying similarity is not destroyed. Something is operating to keep changes within limits.
The subsequent chapters will treat the data for treaties and their development in more detail. For the moment my concern is to give a panoramic view of the evidence and the problems.
If we take the three cultural units of Mesopotamia. the Hittites and Israel, we find in each extensive evidence of treaties. Nevertheless each presents distinctive problems and puzzles.
In Mesopotamia we have attestation of the use of treaties from the Sumerian Early Dynastic Period to the Neo-Babylonian Period. Yet the attestation is sporadic with tendencies to the clumping of evidence in certain periods. In the early period it clusters around Lagash. From then it is sporadic until the late Old Babylonian Assyrian Periods. Due to the larger amount of documentation from Assyria. in subsequent periods we can follow the development better in Assyria than in Babylonia. If we take the evidence at face value, treaties go in and out of fashion in Assyria.
Outside of Mesopotamia. treaties seem closely connected to a use of history to persuade - that is, the attempt to use the previous history of relationship as an argument for preserving the relationship being formalized in the treaty. This use of history appears periodically in Mesopotamia. Yet it is not as pervasive there as it is in other places.
After a gap in attestation that follows the end of the Old Babylonian Assyrian Periods, treaties appear to re-emerge in Mesopotamia in the Kassite Period. The royal land grant or kudurru appears at the same time. Formally and conceptually there are resemblances between treaties and grants. For example, both treaties and grants make use of divine sanctions. This similarity raises two separate issues. Should we see royal grants as a sub-variety of treaties? The second question concerns the interrelationship between national internal and external policies. Generally speaking. land grants belong to internal policies and treaties to external. If grants and treaties are formally and conceptually linked, is it because there are connections between what a state does internally and what it does externally? is that likely to be the case anyway. irrespective of whether treaties come into the picture? This question will arise repeatedly because there are many other cases where a study of treaties and related forms forces us to consider the relationship of internal and external government policies.
There is clear but sporadic attestation of treaties throughout the history of imperial Assyria. Towards the end of that history we encounter, both in the annals and the treaties. a shift of emphasis. The 'good' that Assyria has done for others becomes, for the first time in Assyria, the motive for vassal obedience. Along with that goes an appeal to history.
The persuasive use of history that has already been mentioned is pervasive in Hittite history. We can attest it for Old Middle and New Kingdoms. Yet concrete evidence of treaties comes from the Middle and New Kingdoms. Common, but not universal, in those treaties was the use of history. It is in the Middle Kingdom or very late Old Kingdom that we have our first good evidence of Hittite treaties. It is also in the Middle Kingdom that we have evidence of royal land grants and of instructions to. or oaths by, Hittite subjects which show strong resemblance to treaties. Once again the relation of internal and external arises.
The material so far presented raises questions about the relationship of Mesopotamia and the Hittites. If the persuasive use of history is less prominent in Mesopotamia than amongst the Hittites, what replaces it in Mesopotamia? That is, what induces loyalty to the relationship? The simple answer is found in the far greater emphasis on the curse in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless a simplistic contrast between Hittite use of history and Mesopotamian curse does not do justice to the complexity of the material. In certain circumstances Mesopotamians appeal to history and Hittites bring the curse into prominence.
Already. then. questions arise about the interrelationship of Mesopo¬tamia and the Hittites. Did each develop in a distinctive way a common tradition? Or did the Hittites add their distinctive interest in history to a Mesopotamian cultural item? Or do we see appealing to history and cursing transgressors as so 'natural' that it could have arisen independently in the two centers? Such questions cannot be answered in abstraction from detailed consideration of the history of treaties within each culture. and the relation of internal and external policies.
When we turn to Israel we confront questions arising not just from the history of Israel but also from the history of biblical studies. While the Bible attests many treaties between men, the most distinctive use of a treaty in the Bible is the covenant between God and man. In that covenant history and curse both play a role. Further, biblical monotheism is frequently expressed in treaty concepts; biblical law is encompassed within a covenant. Thus any history of the treaty in Israel becomes a history of concepts basic to Israelite religion, namely covenant, monotheism and law.
Every theological school tends to develop and to depend upon its own history of Israelite religion. Thus the history of the debate about treaties in biblical studies parallels the history of theology this century.
Generally overlooked in these theologically-coloured debates are some peculiarities in the biblical data about treaties. We have biblical evidence for unwritten covenants. In some biblical covenants the 'sign' of the covenant plays a role for which analogies are hard to find outside of Israel. A sacrifice sometimes accompanies covenant making. That is not without analogies but the good analogies do not come from Mesopotamia or the Hittites. They come from Syria and Greece.
The biblical data complicates immensely the tracing of cultural interrelationships. Some scholars have emphasized the historical element of biblical covenants to relate them chronologically to second-millennium Hittites treaties. Others have emphasized the curse element to relate them to first-millennium Assyrian treaties. Others again have denied all relationship in order to preserve their particular theological version of the history of Israel. The tradition in critical biblical scholarship. of dividing and re-dating portions of texts facilitates the arrangement of evidence to prove these quite contradictory positions.
Yet any comprehensive theory of cultural interrelationships has to take into account the ways in which biblical covenants at least appear similar to treaties from different areas while maintaining some peculiarities of their own. The simple borrowing models that have been used, whenever they fix the time of borrowing, do not do justice to the complexity of the data.
The Bible names as 'covenants' arrangements which deviate from what is normal in treaties in one significant aspect. Normally the weaker party, or vassal, has obligations imposed upon him. In some biblical covenants, however, there are no obligations imposed upon men but God. the suzerain, takes obligations upon himself. God takes an obligation on himself by promising to do something and. in traditional theological terms, divine promises are closely related to divine grace. On the other hand obligations upon men constitute what is commonly called law'. Thus the perennial theological question of the relation of grace and law is involved in these different sorts of covenants. This then in turn colours the debate in biblical studies about the relationship of these two covenant emphases.
For our purpose there is another interesting fact about such covenants of promise. They have their closest analogies outside of Israel in royal land grants. Once again the relationship of treaty and grant arises.
So far Egypt has not been drawn into the discussion. That is because Egypt presents its own set of problems. An argument can be constructed that Egypt did not normally use treaties. and certainly not with its vassals. The well-known treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III shows strong evidence of a Hittite origin. One therefore wonders whether the other treaties with the great powers referred to in the Amarna letters are Asian in form and inspiration. Despite the frequent claim that Egypt, during the New Kingdom, bound its Palestinian and Syrian vassals by treaty, the evidence is very weak.
Before dismissing Egypt from consideration we must ask whether there is any evidence for the concepts and practices which typically accompany a treaty. For, given the state of the evidence, we might not have a reference to a treaty but evidence of' the accompanying phenomena might alert us to the existence of one.
One of the associated phenomena is the persuasive use of history. Generally we do not see a tendency in Egypt to argue a course of action from history. Yet there are some significant cases. The intriguing fact is that the best examples come from the First Intermediate Period. That is a period of pharaonic weakness. The compositions in which we have appeal to history belong to the instructions genre, Instructions seems to arise from the scribal class. We may add this to a little hit of New Kingdom evidence, which again connects officials rather than pharaoh with treaty terms.
This admittedly tenuous line of inference raises the question of whether a pharaonic style of rule has tended to suppress treaties and associated concepts. However, the tenuousness of the argument must also be considered. That leads to the question of the 'naturalness' of arguments from history. Is it possible that such argument arose in Egypt quite independently?
So far the Syrian evidence has not been considered. Do we attach this sparse evidence to one of the major areas so far considered or do we see Syria as a cultural centre in its own right?
There is a peculiarity about the Mari data. We have a number of references to treaties with no reference to a written text of the treaty. Were these treaties unwritten? That certainly does not fit our picture of Mesopotamian procedure. Yet once again the argument is from silence. In order not to prejudge the question I have chosen to treat some of the evidence from Mari separately from Mesopotamia.
The treaties from Alalakh show affinities with both Hittite and biblical material. Premature attachment to either body of material would be unwise. They attest the use of history outside of Hittite territory. There is also a possible reference to sacrifice in connection to a treaty.
The Sefire material from the eighth century seems easier to relate. It has clear parallels to Assyrian material and to biblical material in its use of curses.
Some writers have pursued the treaty trail to Greece and Rome.' This study does not do that, although it attempts to take into account the results of such investigations.
When one takes the total data of attestation of treaties, whether we have copies of these treaties or merely references to them in other texts, then a certain pattern emerges. Treaties are much better attested in certain civilizations than others. Even within a civilization there are gaps in the attestation. Are these gaps significant or are they merely the result of the incompleteness of our evidence? The way we answer that question will have a significant impact on our conclusions. The assumption that the treaty form was uniform across cultures in a particular epoch is treating the gaps in evidence as purely due to the accidents of discovery. The problem is that the gaps could be due to a failure to use the treaty form in a particular culture or era.
The only way to deal with this problem is to argue the case for the various possibilities in each instance. Does the other evidence we possess lead us to assuming a lack of use of treaties or to assuming that the evidence has simply been lost?
A similar problem confronts us with the first manifestations of treaty concepts in individual states. Since the forms from different civilizations look sufficiently similar to have a common origin, there must have been links, direct or indirect, between the different manifestations of treaties. We lack the concrete proof of those links. That means that there are crucial issues for which there is no direct evidence. Do all national treaty traditions come from a common source which is unattested? Do they derive from a known culture, specifically Mesopotamia? When and why do the changes occur which are characteristic for the individual national treaty traditions?
Once again the only possible route is that of consideration of the possibilities. This necessity to argue possibilities at so many different points results in a total impression of tentativeness, but better that tentativeness than the definiteness that results from ignoring valid possibilities.
Subsequent chapters will work through the data and problems from the main cultural centers. Tendencies and patterns emerge so that we might speak of typical approaches to treaties in respective cultures. Yet each national tradition relates to the others in complex ways. The obvious distinction between traditions consists in whether history, especially the history of beneficence, is seen as an important motivating factor. Those who do not argue in this way are probably seeing fear, whether of the suzerain or of the oath-observing gods or of both, as a more significant motivational factor. Where fear of the suzerain is important, a consequence is that the suzerain needs sufficient control of power to induce such fear. One can therefore postulate a rough correlation between centralization of political power and seeing fear as motivation versus the resort to appeals to history to motivate when there is not such centralization.
In terms of the treaty form this difference manifests itself in the difference between placing a historical argument for loyalty before the stipulations in order to motivate obedience to those stipulations or placing a god list and consequent threat of divine punishment in that position.
Both approaches will commonly place a god list and curses at the end but the difference might be conceptualized as being between the gods punishing those who are so hard-hearted as to lack gratitude, and the gods punishing those who are so foolish as not to feel fear.
While this distinction is a useful conceptual device it is not a rigid rule. Both devices exist in different measure in each culture. Specific historical circumstances may produce an approach which is not the common one for that culture. The differences are thus differences of tendency, but they are still marked.
The investigation raises the question of whether some societies may dispense with the treaty notion or whether there are periods in which it falls out of fashion. The argument in these cases is flimsy because it is an argument from silence. Nevertheless it raises a significant issue. Parties which enter into treaties, even the meanest vassals, are seen as having some freedom of movement and subsequent responsibility. Freedom of movement of the vassal is contrary to absolute power on the part of the suzerain. Might centralization of power, or at least the desire to project an image of total power, prove hostile to the establishment of treaty relationships? Alternatively there might be a situation in which treaties are pragmatically useful but the reporting of them would not suit the projected royal image. Should we seek a reason for the unevenness of our evidence of treaties in an explanation of this sort? It is a tempting hypothesis.

Dr. Chapman well deserves her reputation as one of the foremost figures in art education in this country and, in fact, has been published in numerous other countries and languages as well. Her multicultural and inclusive approach to art education makes it accessible to everyone. Her "Adventures in Art" series is a stunning achievement both visually and educationally. I wish I had known about this series when I was studying art and art history. I wholeheartedly recommend it.