Building G at Makaynūn: a late pre‐Islamic settlement above the ruins of a South Arabian town

This article presents the results of the excavation of a residence dated between the second and fourth centuries AD, constructed over the ruins of the South Arabian town of Makaynūn, in central Hadramawt (Yemen). The building yielded a large quantity of material including objects proving contacts between the central Hadramawt and regions located to the north‐east, such as central Oman, the Gulf area and India.     

On the Informational Basis of Regional Innovation Policy: From Growth to Capabilities

The shift from the linear to the innovation system-based approach has resulted in the emergence of differentiated regional innovation policy. However, certain common presumptions bind these location-specific policies together. The set of information that is used to design these policies and the set of information excluded are fairly similar. The theoretical sections of this paper provide a critical review on the informational basis of regional innovation policy by contrasting the interpretations of the welfare effects of technological change in the utilitarian tradition and in Sen's capability approach. The empirical sections analyse the correspondence of the innovation capacity and welfare (well-being) situation in a Hungarian micro-regional data set. We conclude that the conventional informational basis of innovation policy is too narrow from a welfare perspective. Not only should the differences in the innovation systems, but also the peculiarities of the region's welfare situation be considered during the design of innovation policy.     

Is Archaeology Developmental?

Archéologie et développement semblent deux notions fort éloignées l'une de l'autre. La première évoque une recherche fondamentale, pure alors que la deuxième parle de santé, économie, éducation, agriculture, pêche, équipement, transports, communications, etc. . . Et pourtant elles se rejoignent dans le bien-être aussi bien matériel que culturel qu'elles sont supposées apporter aux peuples auxquels elles s'adressent. En effet, si elles introduisent, importent des connaissances, des savoirs des techniques et des machines permettant de mieux maîtriser le monde, nourrir et élever les peuples, ces connaissances interfèrent avec la façon dont ceux-ci vivent et ceci depuis longtemps, la façon dont ceux-ci pensent leurs vies et le monde: philosophies, religions, histoires et coutumes dont on pense se débarrasser en les considérant fausses ou irrationnelles. Ainsi apprend-on que laTerre est ronde et tourne autour du soleil, que nous sommes faits de particules, et qu'il faut s'incliner devant les lois de l'évolution. La Science nous a appris et nous apprend toujours la Vérité sur le monde qui nous entoure bien qu'elle ait donné les moyens intellectuels et matériels aux plus grands massacres que l'Histoire ait connus et bien qu'il ne se passe pas de mois sans catastrophes climatiques, industrielles, politiques ou culturelles ou sans sinistres prévisions, comme le nivellement du mondialisme! Ainsi un des problèmes centraux du développement, illustré ici par une réflexion historico-archéologique, réside dans le dialogue (ou son absence) entre ces deux domaines de connaissance: le scientifique, le moderne et l'autochtone, l'ethnique, le non-moderne. Si l'on veut que ce développement concerne la majorité de chaque peuple impliqué, il est de la plus haute importance de s'interroger sur les modalités des échanges et choix de savoirs, leur équilibre et les raisons profondes des désaccords planétaires à ce sujet. Sous cette condition, le Développement deviendra vraiment démocratique.Archaeology and development seem widely separated notions. The former evokes fundamental pure research whereas the latter talks about health, economics, education, agriculture, fishery, equipment, transports, communications, and so on. Nevertheless both focus on the well-being as well material as cultural which they are supposed to bring to people. In fact if they input and import knowledge, technologies and machineries allowing a better mastering of the world, together with feeding and educating people, both development and archaeology interfere with the ways in which people live and many of the things they believe: philosophies, religions, histories, and customs that become defined as false or irrational. Thus we are taught that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, that we are made of particles, and that we have to bow in front of the laws of evolution. Science taught us Truth and still does, a truth that provided the intellectual and material means for the worst massacres of history. Thus one of the central problems of development, herein illustrated by a historico-archaeological reflection, lies in dialogue (or its absence) between these two knowledge domains: the scientific, modern and the autochtonous, ethnic, nonmodern. If development projects are to benefit all, it is of the utmost importance to wonder about the exchanges and choices of knowledge, their balance, and the deep meanings of globalization. Under such conditions, development will become really democratic.