The Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in the Channel Islands: Maritime and Terrestrial Perspectives

This paper investigates the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the Channel Islands. It presents a new synthesis of all known evidence from the islands c.5000–4300 bc , including several new excavations as well as find‐spot sites that have not previously been collated. It also summarizes – in English – a large body of contemporary material from north‐west France. The paper presents a new high‐resolution sea‐level model for the region, shedding light on the formation of the Channel Islands from 9000–4000 bc . Through comparison with contemporary sites in mainland France, an argument is made suggesting that incoming migrants from the mainland and the small indigenous population of the islands were both involved in the transition. It is also argued that, as a result of the fact the Channel Islands witnessed a very different trajectory of change from that seen in Britain and Ireland c.5000–3500 bc , this small group of islands has a great deal to tell us about the arrival of the Neolithic more widely.     

Policy Bubbles

We develop the concept of a policy bubble to capture the notion of long‐term overinvestment in a policy. In sketching the relation of policy bubbles to economic bubbles, we describe how these two concepts have similar origins but different trajectories because they are filtered by different institutions. We examine in some detail three likely instances of ongoing policy bubbles: crime policy, school reform (charter schools and private education vouchers), and the contracting and privatization of public services. We show how these cases differ from the housing bubble of 1997–2007, how they differ from each other, and the extent to which they can be considered policy bubbles. Last, we suggest this concept can help unify the policy process literature with the practice of policy evaluation and outline testable hypotheses for future research.     

Archaeometry and materiality: materials‐based analysis in theory and practice*

Due to the diversity of contemporary archaeology, the aims and approaches of archaeological scientists and archaeological theorists are often at odds. I suggest that this position is problematic, both intellectually and methodologically, as both groups are fundamentally engaged in the same task: an understanding of past societies through the medium of material culture. This paper offers a review of the intellectual positions of both groups, with a brief discussion of the history of archaeological theory and an appraisal of its current trajectory. I will discuss how and why contemporary theoretical perspectives have fundamentally diverged from the perspectives of archaeological scientists and how the recent theoretical emphasis upon materiality offers a rapprochement between theoreticians and archaeological scientists.     

An Independent Palestine: The Security Dimension

If negotiations produce an end to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict then a sovereign, independent Palestine may emerge. But what is required for it to succeed? Nothing is more important than the security of a Palestinian state–for itself, for Israel, and for the region: security trumps all else. In addition to the problem of dealing effectively with opposition to a peace agreement within Palestine or directed against it from outside, the nature and magnitude of the security challenge will depend in large part on three issues: the drawing of borders between Israel and Palestine–and whether they are porous or marked by a rigid line of barriers; whether Israeli settlements are withdrawn, or in part incorporated into Israel, perhaps through land swaps with Palestine; and what arrangements are made for Jerusalem. One answer is the creation of effective Palestinian military forces (in addition to police), but this course could be divisive; a second is the development of a series of Israeli–Palestinian confidence‐building and share–security measures, including intelligence cooperation; a third is progress towards reducing external threats to Israel–Palestine, including success in Iraq and in defusing other Middle East problems. Most useful, however, would be the creation of an American‐led peace enabling force, ideally modelled on NATO. This force would need to be agreed by both Israel and Palestine; it must be adequately staffed, trained and equipped; its duties and rules of engagement must make sense to all parties; and it must be part of a network of dispute‐resolution and confidence‐building measures in full partnership with Israeli and Palestinian authorities.