It would be presumption for a non-medical man to comment upon the anatomical findings of Professor Harrison and Dr Abdalla until the facts and the inferences that can be drawn from them have been fully published. This article, then, cannot claim to be more than a commentary and speculation on those facts that are at present available.

Anyone who tries for long to penetrate the fascinating world of the prehistoric Aegean becomes aware very quickly of a certain malaise in the works of modern scholars. It is now a century since Schliemann first dug at Troy, and the mass of archaeological evidence continues to increase at an almost alarming rate. I say ‘alarming’ because the pace of excavation threatens to outrun our ability to assimilate and control the evidence.

‘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.

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.

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.