‘Cadbury Castle or Camelot’ is the name given by the Ordnance Survey to the 18-acre (c. 7-ha) multi-ramparted hillfort which stands above the villages of Sutton Montis and South Cadbury in the county of Somerset (NGR ST 6225). Abbreviated to Cadbury-Camelot, it serves conveniently to distinguish this fortthe scene of intensive excavations in 1966-70 from Cadbury Castle by Cadbury, Devon (NGR SS 9105), Cadbury Camp by Congresbury (NGR ST 4464), or various other Cadbury Camps and Castles.

In recent years research has been directed to looking for the origins of agriculture and to finding the causes of the transition from hunting and gathering to food production and the domestication of plants and animals. From these studies it has become apparent first, that the transition occurred several times and in several places in prehistory; secondly, that the mechanisms underlying the transition are quite complex; and thirdly that the transition occurred in some regions but not in others, in spite of the prevalence of similar environmental conditions and patterns of exploitation.

Aerial surveys of Picardy have brought to light numerous systems of graves and in-filled ditches, generally protohistoric, as well as Roman camps, and even some trench diggings in the historical period.

It would be an exaggeration to say that until recently the sculpture of Celtic and Roman Gaul has remained unknown. Espérandieu’s catalogue (Espérandieu, 1907) and the collections at St-Germain (Benoit, 1969) provided numerous illustrations, often of exceptional quality. Nevertheless, the recent finds of votive deposits at the Source of the Seine in Burgundy and Chamalihres in Auvergne (Martin, 1963; 1964; Deyts, 1966; Vatin, 1969a; 1969b) have extended our knowledge to an unexpected degree, and in a field with which we were previously almost entirely unfamiliar, that of sculpture in wood (EspCrandieu, no. 2970 ff. (Montbouy), 3412 (Essarois), 5347 (Luxeuil); Mansuelli, 1967, fig. 115; Louis, 1950; 1954). The Chamalihres deposit alone yielded more than five thousand wooden ex-votos: the figure speaks for itself.

In the United States, prehistoric archeologyas distinct from Classical Archaeology-has been taught primarily in Departments of Anthropology. A predictable outcome of this is that students so trained have attempted to give archeology-often minimally characterized as mere excavation technique-a strong anthropological orientation. This movement culminated in the 1960s. The following brief review of books published in that decade that illustrate the viewpoint of the ‘ew archeology’ is not meant so much to be critical of as introductory to a literature.

A very wide field of African rock art, both paintings and engravings, is covered in Burchard Brentjes: African rock art, with special reference to South Africa, Rhodesia, the Sahara, North Africa and Egypt. Because of the general nature of the book, there is little attempt to be comprehensive or conclusive, the aim being more to foster an appreciation and awareness of the art than to solve problems or place it in an archaeological context.

In recent years the important role that scientific research techniques can play in archaeological investigations has become increasingly recognized. An early major review on the whole subject of both physical and biological science in archaeology by D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs was revised in 1967 and represents the major work in this field. More recently, much of the effort in physical sciences has also been admirably reviewed by Tite (1970). This present paper also seeks to outline the ways in which physical science has contributed to archaeological discovery, with particular emphasis on recent developments known to the author.

Although several studies along broadly similar lines have been attempted by other authors in the past, it will benefit any archaeologist approaching the work of Professor A. Thom for the first time to do so with a fresh mind. What is new about Thom’s approach to this subject, which many astronomers find equally absorbing, is the care that has evidently been bestowed in the measurement of the sites themselves, the attention to detail that characterizes the reduction of this data, and finally the great volume of source material which, in his books and other writings, he has put at the disposal of others. Previous work seems by comparison to have been of lower accuracy and restricted to at most a few sites, of which Stonehenge figures most frequently.