THE DOUBLE-AXE: A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF A CRETAN SYMBOL IN THE NEOPALATIAL PERIOD

The Double-Axe has always been considered as one of the most important religious symbols in Minoan Crete. This paper reassesses the significance of the Double-Axe and puts forward a new interpretation for it. It recognizes the great potential for change in symbolic meanings during the Bronze Age and seeks to understand the Double-Axe in as narrow a period as is realistically possible by filtering out evidence from other periods. Central to the argument is the principle that the meaning of symbols is contextually dependent. It builds, therefore, a new interpretation of the Double-Axe on the basis of as wide a range of contextual associations as possible, both within iconographic sources and in the wider material record. From these contextual associations, it suggests that in the Neopalatial period the Double-Axe was a symbol primarily associated with a social group which exercised power in the economic, military and religious realms and that it became a solely religious symbol only later.     

Living with nuclear hedging: the implications of Iran's nuclear strategy

For the past decade, much attention has been devoted to the potential consequences of a nuclear‐armed Iran. Yet the binary ‘acquisition/restraint’ lens through which the Iranian nuclear issue is frequently viewed is limiting. There is now much evidence to suggest that Iran is engaged in a strategy based on nuclear hedging, rather than an outright pursuit of the bomb. This does not change the need to contain Tehran's proliferation potential, yet it does add another layer of complexity to the challenge. Iran will retain a low level of latency whatever the final outcome of longstanding diplomatic efforts to constrain the scope and pace of its nuclear efforts. This article will explore the implications of Iranian nuclear hedging and consider how regional rivals might interpret and respond to Tehran's nuclear strategy. On a larger scale, the article will explore the potential impact of the international community's approach to the Iranian case—implicitly recognizing, even giving legitimacy to, hedging—both in terms of the future of the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the ability of the international community to limit the negative effects of this form of proliferation behaviour.     

OPTICAL DATING OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE GRAINS OF QUARTZ FROM JINMIUM ROCK SHELTER,NORTHERN AUSTRALIA: PART I,EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND STATISTICAL MODELS*

Jinmium rock shelter is famous for the claims made by Fullagar et al. (1996) for the early human colonization and ancient rock art of northern Australia. These claims were based on thermo-luminescence ages obtained for the artefact-bearing quartz sediments that form the floor deposit at the site. In this paper, we outline the background to the optical dating programme at Jinmium, and describe the experimental design and statistical methods used to obtain optical ages from single grains of quartz sand. The results, interpretations, and implications of this dating programme are reported in a companion paper (Roberts et al. 7999, this volume).     

Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar

Over the past generation, roughly the period since 1980, there has been a discernible professionalization among the advocates before the Supreme Court, to the extent that one can speak of the emergence of a real Supreme Court bar. Before defending that proposition, it is probably worth considering whether advocacy makes a difference—whether oral argument matters. My view after one year on the opposite side of the bench is the same as that expressed by no less a figure than Justice John Marshall Harlan—the second one—forty-nine years ago, after he completed his year on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. ¹ Justice Harlan lamented what he saw as a growing tendency among the bar "to regard the oral argument as little more than a traditionally tolerated part of the appellate process," a chore "of little importance in the decision of appeals." ² This view, he said, was "greatly mistaken." ³ As Justice Harlan told the bar, "[Y]our oral argument on appeal is perhaps the most effective weapon you have got." ⁴