Neolithic woodland composition and exploitation in the Southern Levant: a comparison between archaeobotanical remains from WF16 and present day woodland at Hammam Adethni

Excavations at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of WF16 in the Southern Levant produced an archaeobotanical assemblage constituted by plant macro-fossils and wood charcoal. As with all such assemblages, its species composition will most likely provide a biased reflection of those within the Neolithic woodland that had been exploited owing to cultural selection and differential preservation. As a means of facilitating its interpretation, a survey was undertaken of a relatively undisturbed patch of gallery woodland associated with a permanent water course at Hammam Adethni, approximately four kilometres south-east of WF16. The substantial overlap of the species within this woodland and those in the archaeobotanical assemblage suggests that this present-day woodland provides an analogue for that of the Neolithic and may therefore indicate what other plant resources the inhabitants of WF16 may have exploited, but which have left no archaeological trace. The interpretation of the results is supported by a comparative study of wood charcoal from present-day Bedouin hearths in Wadi Faynan.

Characterisation of soils containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) using in situ and rapid laboratory techniques. Case study: South Terras, Cornwall

In situ analysis has become increasingly important for contaminated land investigation and remediation. At present, portable techniques are used mainly as scanning tools to assess the spread and magnitude of the contamination, and are an adjunct to conventional laboratory analyses. A site in Cornwall, containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), provided an opportunity for Reading University PhD student Anna Kutner to compare analytical data collected in situ with data generated by laboratory-based methods. The preliminary results in this paper extend the author‟s poster presentation at last September‟s GeoSpec2010 conference held in Lancaster.

Reaching the people: Isotype beyond the West

An overview of the work of the Isotype Institute in the Western Region of Nigeria in the 1950s.

When do export subsidies have a redistributional role? Reply

Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.

Helga's dune: 40 years of dune dynamics in the Namib Desert

The dynamics of a small linear dune on the northern margin of the Namib Sand Sea have been monitored using erosion pins placed at the dune tip since 1969. GPS measurements of these pins enabled estimation of the rates of advance and lateral migration of the dune. The average rate of advance of the dune tip over the period 1969–2012 was 1.99 m yr–1 towards 015°. Rates of advance and lateral movement varied over the period of monitoring, with a decrease in rates of advance by a factor of 50%, but an increase in the rate of lateral movement. Changes in dune behavior appear to be related to changes in wind regime and the vegetation cover of the interdune area, as a result of increased rainfall in recent years. This study demonstrates the dynamic nature of the tip of this dune and its sensitivity to changes in winds and sand supply.

Categories, concepts and units: representing energy demand in and through time

Methods of data collection are unavoidably rooted in some sort of theoretical paradigm, and are inextricably tied to an implicit agenda or broad problem framing. These prior orientations are not always explicit, but they matter for what data is collected and how it is used. They also structure opportunities for asking new questions, for linking or bridging between existing data sets and they matter even more when data is re-purposed for uses not initially anticipated. In this paper we provide an historical and comparative review of the changing categories used in organising and collecting data on mobility/travel and time use as part of ongoing work to understand, conceptualise and describe the changing patterns of domestic and mobility related energy demand within UK society. This exercise reveals systematic differences of method and approach, for instance in units of measurement, in how issues of time/duration and periodicity are handled, and how these strategies relate to the questions such data is routinely used to address. It also points to more fundamental differences in how traditions of research into mobility, domestic energy and time use have developed. We end with a discussion of the practical implications of these diverse histories for understanding and analysing changing patterns of energy/mobility demand at different scales.