No abstract

No abstract

This paper is presented as a warning of the pitfalls which are involved in a too ready and uncritical acceptance of the evidence for apparent changes in relative land and sea level which has been derived from the archaeological and historical remains around the coasts of southern Britain. The general trends of relative sea level changes in the later Holocene are indicated; but I am concerned more to correct some of the misapprehensions and inexact conclusions which have been drawn from the often imprecise data, and to establish a wider recognition of the types of errors and inaccurate assumptions which have been promulgated in some publications, and which erroneously, albeit unwittingly, have been cited by specialists in other disciplines to reinforce or to substantiate conclusions derived from their different data. The optimum conditions for establishing the former positions of relative mean sea level are found in deposits which can be shown to have formed in a known relationship to sea level as part of a continuous halosere from marine sands and clays to freshwater fen deposits (cf. Churchill 1965, p. 240). I would stress that estimates of sea level changes should be based primarily on the analysis of physiographical data; the archaeological and historical data may provide complementary and corroborative evidence of relative land and sea level changes, but they are generally too imprecise to stand alone as definitive indicators of actual mean sea level or tidal heights.

"This article reviews some recent key books on HIV/AIDS in Africa. It does so by examining the debates relating to the extent and possible future development of HIV/AIDS referring to the discussions about demographic, economic and social impacts in especially eastern and southern Africa. It explores the so-called doomsday scenarios and addresses themes linked to the important and increasing attention being paid to the gendered aspects of HIV/AIDS."

a mechanism to help regulate the behavior of those with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, as historians and ethnographers have documented, the attempt to control others in the name of morality is more likely to lead to confrontation than moral improvement. Many anthropologists were moved to enter the discipline because of a strong concern for the peoples of the world. During their fieldwork, most have developed a strong empathy for the peoples they have studied and have felt a sense of personal responsibility for their welfare. Hence, when they use, hurt, or endanger others, it is usually not because of a vicious disposition, but because they are under strong pressures, some of which are conflicting or difficult to reconcile, and they may then drift into an expedient course of action that proves unwise. The cross-pressures of modern fieldwork are severe, and they can easily induce an investigator to treat the host people as "subjects," rather than as fellow human beings whose autonomy must be respected. While completing a graduate degree, or submitting a prompt report to an employer or client, or resolving an intense emotional relationship, we may neglect to consider other factors in the situation or the consequences our actions will have for others. Convictions, leading presumably to the abstract and universal benefit of humanity, can be used to justify the violation of agreements entered into with good faith on both sides. Awareness that others are acting exploitatively or immorally can seductively encourage us to adopt a similar orientation. In the field especially, situations may be so complex, involve so many parties and so much factionalism, that it becomes difficult to decide what must be done. We do not wish to make ethics seem merely a matter of isolated choices in crucial situations. Much of our lives proceeds undramatically, and often our decisions are almost imperceptible, so that only with hindsight are we aware that our course of action had consequences that we had not foreseen and now regret. To improve the ethical adequacy of anthropological practice, we must consider not only exceptional cases but everyday decisions, and reflect not only upon the conduct of others but also upon our own actions. Despite difficulties in writing a code specific enough to use as a mechanism of social control, a code of ethics can help improve anthropological practice. When it is conceived as a way of reflecting upon our own practices and attempting to improve them, as well as a method for regulating behavior, a code can heighten sensitivity to professional conduct. In this twofold approach, a code is concerned with aspirations as well as avoidances; it represents our desire and attempt to respect the rights of others, fulfill obligations, avoid harm, and augment benefits to those we interact with as anthropologists. Such a code is less a set of categorical prohibitions engraved in stone, than a series of aspirations, admonitions, and injunctions to be considered, discussed, and periodically altered by the community ...