Mr. A. H. S. Megaw, Director of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, reports: Excavation was resumed in the summer of 1965 on all three sites currently assigned to the School for investigation: a Neolithic settlement in the Cyclades (the first such to be systematically excavated), a Minoan settlement in Kythera, and an important Bronze Age site in Euboea which continued in occupation until the Geometric period. At the first two the planned excavations have been completed. At Saliagos, an islet near Antiparos, Professor J. D. Evans (London) and Dr A. C. Renfrew (Cambridge) in their final campaign identified three phases of Neolithic occupation, homogeneous in culture, and, pending confirmation by the C14 method, at present assigned to the early 4th millennium B.C. (PL. XVII~T).h e central building complex of the last phase was found to be enclosed by a perimeter wall, over I m. thick at one corner, to which a semicircular bastion-like structure gave the impression of defensive purpose. Wellstratified deposits exceeding 2 m. in depth yielded more of the characteristic pottery (with usually rectilinear decoration in white paint on a dark burnished surface) and more evidence of a rich chipped stone industry, chiefly of Melian obsidian, Two fragments of marble vessels and a schematic 'violin-idol' are noteworthy local antecedents for the Early Cycladic marble industry. An incomplete marble figurine of a fat seated woman was also found, of the type familiar from finds in Naxos and in mainland Greece. The principal domesticated animal attested was the sheep and there is little evidence of wild species. The preserved grain included emmer, einkorn and two-row barley, while over 40 species of marine molluscs were recorded.

The neolithic pottery of peninsular Italy is known in England chiefly through Stevenson's classic paper of 1947 which established the sequence of styles in Apulia, and the Sicilian material through the work of Bernabò Brea [I]. Neither of these studies paid much attention to the Abruzzo-Molise region where Rellini had published material from Ripoli as long ago as 1934 [2] and where more recent work by Radmilli and his associates has provided new information about the local neolithic cultures. Excavations along the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia have led to the definition of the new cultures of Hvar and Danilo, and three painted ware provinces can now be recognized: ApuIia-Sicily, the Abruzzo, and Dalmatia. All three regions border the Adriatic and each was at some time in contact with the others (FIG. I).

The best starting-point is still south Italy where the sequence from impressed ware, through red-painted fasce larghe plus scratched, to black-bordered red bands (Capri) and finally Serra d'Alto remains valid, except in the region of Foggia where Trump has established a rather different local sequence [3].

First I have a think, and then I draw a line around my think.' Those words, which were said by a child, offer the key to draughtsmanship. That key is usually lost during the business of growing up, and has to be rediscovered. To regain the clear uninhibited vision of what drawing is really about, the adult as often as not has to rid himself of various irrelevant and confused notions. That done, he can once more draw as naturally as he speaks. Mental attitude is immeasurably more important a matter than the relative merits of this and that method of delivering ink to paper, and must be considered at the outset. The cases of Rapidograph versus Graphos and Hand- Drawn versus Letraset, with all their delicious technicalities, will be heard later.

This article attempts to highlight certain qualities of the Eskimo economy seen in overview and, if it repeats some anthropological clichés, perhaps the repetition will serve a purpose for clichés, despite their shortcomings, often become such by an innate worth. Further, some used here seem to have been largely forgotten in recent literature on Eskimo prehistory. A rare exception, and a point of departure for this article, was recently offered by Collins, who notes, 'In America, however, there is sometimes a tendency to see an overly close relationship between specific cultural manifestations and particular kinds of environment, and to overemphasize the role of environment in the dissemination of culture. In the Eskimo field this point of view is reflected in the related concept of a rather sharp dichotomy between inland and coast, with the former the center of origin—a kind of fata morgana that has beset Eskimo archaeology for decades and which still exerts its residual influence, even though the concept in its original elaborated form no longer finds acceptance.' (Collins, 1962, 134.

It is becoming apparent that megalithic man possessed and used a considerable knowledge of geometry. As more of his constructions are unravelled, we obtain an increasing appreciation of his attainments. Undoubtedly he also observed the heavenly bodies and used them to tell the time of day or night and to tell the day of the year. To take geometry first, let us look at the various shapes which, in his hands, a ring of stone could take. To understand these rings fully it is necessary to appreciate that he used extensively a very precise unit of length—the megalithic yard (MY). The exact length of this unit has become known to us by an examination of simple circles and flattened circles. When the author produced the first batch of circle diameters there was no universally accepted statistical analysis for the determination of the reliability of a quantum such as the suggested value for the megalithic yard. Then Broadbent produced two papers providing exactly the methods required to find, from a set of measurements, the most probable value of the quantum and the probability level at which it could be accepted [1,2]. This last is very important because Hammersley had shown that almost any random set of (say) diameters will yield an apparent unit of some sort.

Hetty Pegler's Tump or the Uley Barrow in Gloucestershire, some five miles south-west of Stroud, has been well known since it was first dug by Dr Fry in 1821 and then, in 1854, by Dr Thurnam and Professor Freeman [I]. The plan published by Thurnam has often been reproduced, and is shown here again for ease of reference (FIG. I). It is on such a small scale that the details of the monument are obscured, but until now it was the only plan available. Now, due to the courteous co-operation of Miss Olive Lloyd-Baker of Hardwick Court, Gloucester, it is possible to publish a plan (FIG. 2) and a view (FIG. 3) of the monument made in 1821 by J. T. Lloyd-Baker and his account of what went on at the time.