ANTIQUITY, LIV, 1980

Megalithic science and some Scottish site plansGORDON MOIR, CLIVE RUGGLES & RAY NORRIS

Part I by Gordon MoirThe first part of this article is by Dr Gordon lVIoir, of Newcastle upon Tyne, who is already known toreaders of 'Antiquity' for his critique of Sir Fred Hoyle's book on Stonehenge (LIII, I24-9) whichhas called forth a reply from Sir Fred in this issue (44-5). In this article he turns a sceptical eye upon

some of Professor Thom's megalithic surveys.

'A cairn supported at its edge by large stones maybe removed .... The ring which is left looks like astone circle.' (Thorn, 1967, 65).Professor A. Thorn has surveyed a large number ofarchaeological sites (Thorn, 1967; 1971). Thesesurveys provide the basis from which he deducesthe existence of the Megalithic Yard (MY),Megalithic Geometry and Megalithic Astronomy.In considering his evidence for these aspects of'megalithic science' it is pertinent to enquire ofeach site: Does it date from the Late Neolithic or

Early Bronze Age? Is it correctly identified? Dothe stones occupy their original positions? Is thesite plan accurate? Has the site already been dis­cussed, or since discussed, in the archaeologicalliterature? The example of Unival, discussed indetail later, shows that here Thorn has made aserious error in identifying the site, and veryprobably made surveying errors. These errorsvitiate part of his discussion of an important site.This mis-identification, and similar ones, couldhave been avoided if the archaeological literaturehad been consulted.

Burl, 1976, mentions some of these sorts oferrors: the Botallek circles were probably smallishhut-circles; the Nine Maidens at Porthmeor wasprobably a dilapidated walled hut-enclosure; out­liers to Grey Croft and Castlerigg stone circleswere buried and subsequently re-erected, but notnecessarily in their original positions; and so­called megalithic ellipses at Fowlis Wester were infact circular settings. Daniel (1975), draws atten­tion to the probability that the erucuno rectanglewas an eighteenth-century folly. Thom and Thom

37

(1978a), correct the geometrical interpretation ofFowlis Wester and reject the possibility thatCrucuno could be anything but megalithic.

The site at Kintraw (NGR: NM 830°5°, Thom1967; 1971) is one of potential extreme accuracyfor the observation of mid-winter sunset, and hasbeen much discussed following MacKie's excava­tion of the associated' observing platform' (MacKie1974; 1977)· The cairns at Kintraw have beenexcavated (Simpson, 1969). (The metric scale inSimpson's plan is meaningless, for it implies that2·8 feet = I metre and 2 X la = 25. In whatfollows it is assumed that Simpson's imperial scaleis accurate. At least it is in agreement with themeasurements given in his text.) If Thom's plan ofKintraw (1967, Fig. 12.1) is compared withSimpson's, several discrepancies are immediatelyapparent. The smaller cairn, Simpson's cairn B,

has a kerb around it. He gives the diameter of thissub-circular cairn as I 1ft (3'4 m). Thorn takes it tobe a stone circle (i.e. truly circular), and gives itsdiameter as 21'4 ft (6'5 m). Both plans agree on thedistance between the centres of the two cairns

(about 64 ft, 19'5 m), on the size of the largercairn (49ft, 15m) and on the relative position of themenhir. However, the bearing of the line joiningthe cairn centres is 84° on Simpson's plan, but60° on Thorn's, Assuming Simpson gives a mag­netic north rather than true north is not sufficient

to account for this discrepancy. Further, theorientation of the small cist on the north-west side

of cairn B with respect to the line joining the cairncentres differs in each plan.

These differences matter because Thorn uses the

ANTIQUITY

diameter of cairn B in his statistical determination

of the Megalithic Yard and uses the orientation ofthe cist as evidence towards the existence of his

proposed Megalithic Calendar. Kintraw should beindependently resurveyed to determine which, ifeither, of the plans is accurate. The inclusion of thediameters of cairns in a statistical determination of

the unit of length used in setting out stone rings isnot to be recommended. There are many differenttypes of cairns from all sorts of archaeological sites.At Kintraw Thorn seems to have thought he wasdealing with a stone circle. Other cairns are includedin his lists-e.g. Monzie, Culdoich*, Moyness. Ifthese were removed, leaving then only undisputedstone circles, then perhaps the statistical evidencein favour of the Megalithic Yard would emergemore clearly.

It is possible that Thorn may have surveyedKintraw before it was excavated, and thus foundthe site in a significantly different state from whatit is now. It is also possible that Simpson's measure­ment refers to the central part ohhe cairn, whereasThorn measured the kerb. It should also be noted

that the leaning menhir finally fell in Spring 1979and has now been re-erected, so that it standsvertically.

In view of the importance of Kintraw in discus­sions of Megalithic Astronomy it seems somewhatsurprising that no-one has remarked (to the best ofmy knowledge) on the differences in the two pub­lished site plans. A similar situation holds atUnival, a site to which Thorn attaches great im­portance. Hadingham (1975) seems to have beenthe first to realize that Thom's site 'Leacach an

Tigh Chloiche' (The Stone House on the Ridge) isidentical with the chambered cairn of Unival (orUneval), North Uist, excavated by Sir LindsayScott (Scott, 1947). However, Hadingham did nottake the next step of comparing the two publishedsite plans for Unival. When Thom's plan forUnival is compared with Scott's (Moir, 1978),several interesting points emerge.

At present Unival consists of several standingstones representing the remains of the burialchamber and its passage, and the remains of theperistalith. The cairn material has mostly vanishedexcept where it has been incorporated into iron­age huts on the north and east sides of the cairn.There is a nearby standing stone, to the west of thecairn. Sufficient of the orthostats remain for thetrue nature of the site to be apparent to me before

• Known by Thorn as Miltown of Clava, B 7/2.

reading Scott's paper. Thus the site has notdeteriorated unduly since excavation.

Thom describes the site thus (Thom, 1967,131): 'It is the most important site in the island(i.e. N. Uist) and consists of a mixture of open kistsand upright stones. The latter seem to form anellipse 20 X 13 MY, which gives a calculatedperimeter of 52'42.' Presumably the 'open kists'are, at least in part, the iron-age huts. In order tocompare Thom's and Scott's plans (FIG. I), Scott'splan has been simplified and reorientated.

Various differences between the two plans areevident. The orientation of Thorn's stone 'D', thetallest orthostat at the back of the chamber, isdifferent from that shown by Scott. The line of thekerb on the south-east side differs in each plan. Itis not clear which of the kerb stones 'E' is supposedto be. Although Thom claims that the uprightstones form an ellipse, only four of them lie on hisellipse. He has chosen to emphasize these four,stones B, C, D and E, and draw an ellipse throughthem. It is not clear why these stones have beenselected and others ignored. Four stones are notenough to uniquely define an ellipse, although thecondition that the stones are also tangent to theellipse would be sufficient to define the curve.Three of the stones lie on the outside of the curve,but the fourth is to the inside. In any event, if thebuilders of the cairn had intended to define an

ellip se by part of the kerb and one of the rear stonesof t he chamber, this ellipse would have been hiddenonce the cairn was put up.

In discussing the astronomical uses of UnivalThom draws attention to the fact that it stands outon the horizon when viewed from other megalithicsites below. Thus it could function as the foresightin astronomical sighting lines. However, the prop­erty of being visible against the sky from below ismore easily eXplained in terms of its function as achambered tomb, which is often thus positioned.Also, not all the sighting lines from nearby siteshave astronomical explanations. Those that do Ihave considered in detail (Moir, 1978). Two ofthem will be discussed briefly here, as theyillustrate criticisms of Megalithic Astronomy thatcan be made at other sites.

The large, flat-sided, standing stone, 'A', isclaimed by Thom to indicate Ben Tuath, on Wiay,some 13 miles (21 km) distant, to the south-south­east, where the moon would rise at its major stand­still (Thom, 1967, 131; 1971, 70). The horizonaltitude of the foresight is so low (- 10') that great

MEGALITHIC SCIENCE 39

OBSCURED

o[3ilI

30 FT

Fig. I (a, left) Leacach an Tigh Chloiche (after Thom). (b, right) Unival (after Scott)

difficulties would be experienced in its use. Thesedifficulties, principally caused by atmosphericabsorption and variable refraction, are discussed inMoir (1979). Also the horizon profile for Ben Tuathis calculated from maps, not surveyed on site. Thisis a potentially dangerous procedure, for nearbyground may obscure the sight-line, as at theCallanish avenue looking south (Cooke et al., 1977),and it can be an inaccurate procedure. However, forthe line to Ben Tuath this inaccuracy would besmall, and nothing does obscure the view.

Thorn and Thorn (1978b) reconsider all lunarlines. Only 25 per cent of the lines from Thorn(1971) are included in this new discussion. Pre­sumably many of the lines, like the one to BenTuath, are rejected because their horizon profilesare taken from maps. If the same proportion ofsolar and stellar lines are rejected for this reason,then the evidence for Megalithic Astronomy ismuch weakened. It would considerably help in­vestigators of Professor Thorn's theories if hewould publish a list of those sites where thehorizon profiles are calculated from maps. If the75 per cent of lunar lines referred to above havebeen rejected for other reasons, it would be ofinterest to know what these reasons are. Indeed it

would be interesting to know why of the 43 or solunar lines in Thorn (1967) only 10 are consideredin Thorn (1971). If subsequent re-examinations oflunar lines have shown them to be so unreliable,

what would similar examinations of the solar andstellar lines show?

The other astronomical use of Unival to be dis­

cussed here is the proposal by Thorn that it func­tions as a backsight for a calendrical line (corre­sponding to sunrise at months II and 13 in hisMegalithic calendar). The foresights are tworuinous sites about 3 miles (5 km) away on lowerground. The line of sight is well below the horizon,which, in my opinion, precludes its use forastronomical purposes. Also I could not see theforesights without the aid of binoculars. At othersites I have visited the foresights have been simil­arly indistinct, e.g. Brogar, or with the line of sightdirected well below the horizon, e.g. the Callanishavenue looking north.

After discussing Unival, Thorn (1967, 133) con­cludes, 'Thus it appears that The House on theRidge is one of the most important sites in Britain... ' Because it is such an important site it isessential to resolve the discrepancies betweenThorn's and Scott's plans. The independent surveyby Ruggles and Norris (see below) is most oppor­tune and I am grateful for being allowed to exam­ine their plan before its publication. It is clear thatScott's plan is essentially correct. It is to be hopedthat Kintraw can be resurveyed and the differencesthere resolved.

Another site where differences exist between

plans is Learable Hill, Sutherland. Almost all of

ANTIQUITY

the stones shown in the Royal Commission's plan(RCAHM-S, 19II, Fig. 54) can be fairly easilylocated on the ground. Thorn (1967, Fig. 12.13)shows only a portion of the site. He shows themenhir in the wrong position. Two of the stonerows, for which Thorn proposes astronomicalexplanations, are shown in the Commission's planto extend beyond the area planned by Thorn. Infact these extensions are down a slope, whereas

Thorn has chosen to show only those stones situatedon a relatively flat part of the site. Thus thoughThorn may believe of stone rows (1967, 158),'Those on Learable Hill ... are easy of interpreta­tion', it must be recorded that his plan shows lessthan half the stones at that site.

The criticisms of Thorn's work given above sug­gest that the foundations of Megalithic Science arenot as certain as may have been thought.

Part II by Clive Ruggles & Ray NorrisThe second part of this article, lA recent survey of Unival chambered tomb', is by Dr CliveRuggles and Dr Ray Nom·s. Dr Ruggles, an astrophysicist, is at present working in the Depart­ment of Archaeology, University College, Cardiff on a complete reappraisal of Thom's claimedmegalithic lunar observatories. Dr Norris is a radioastronomer working as a research assistant atJodrell Bank. As well as making surveys, with his wife Cilla, of megalithic sites on Dartmoor, he

is collecting data for a reappraisal of Thom's geometrical constructions at stone circles.

We add some remarks about the Unival site, rele­vant to Moir's discussion, which derive from anindependent survey undertaken on 29 July 1979·We surveyed only extant features, withoutreference either to Scott's excavation report(Scott, 1947), or to Thorn's sketch plan (Thorn,1967,132). The resulting groundplan is reproducedhere (FIG. 2).

The site was surveyed using a Kern DKM-ltheodolite reading to 10", and steel measuring tape.Theodolite stations were set up at T l' T 2 and T 3

and tied in to the required accuracy by repeatedmeasurement of reference objects. The directionof due north was accurately determined by observa­tions of the sun, timed using a calibrated quartzcrystal wristwatch. Primary points were establishedby making chalk marks on fixed stones; eachprimary point was surveyed from at least onetheodolite station. Tape and magnetic compassmeasurements were then taken relative to primarypoints on individual stones in order to determinetheir shape and orientation. Measured points havebeen reduced to the horizontal plane and plottedrelative to an arbitrary origin to the SW of the site.The uncertainty in the position of any primarypoint is never greater than ± 0'03m in either axis.The probable error in orientation of individualstones is ± 2°, so that even for large stones (suchas m) with only one primary point, the position onthe plan of any part of the stone should be correctto O·lm.

Heights of standing stones are marked on the

plan. Where stones are leaning this is the presentvertical distance of the highest point above groundlevel at the base, rather than the assumed height ifvertical. All stones higher than O·srn are included.Baselines are shown pecked wherever overgrowingvegetation ma..k.esthem uncertain. Stones g and nhave fallen inwards against the wall of the cairn;their full extent above ground is shown, but withthe entire outline pecked except for that part whichformed the baseline when the stone was standing.The following features are also shown on the plan,but have not been surveyed accurately and areincluded only fm'the purposes of rough comparison:(i) two large fallen slabs which have not becomeovergrown; (ii) those iron age hut walls whichremain clearly discernible; and (iii) four disturbedareas where large concentrations of small, non­earthfast stones occur. There are, of course, othersmall stones all over the site.

By drawing a five-metre grid orientated NSEWover a copy of Scott's plan, we have been able tocompare it with our own. We find that each ofstones a to r is marked on Scott's plan, althoughstone f, a kerbstone which was shifted during theiron age occupation, is marked in outline only.There is close agreement, certainly to withinO·srn, as to the positions of each of these stones.The orientations of several are noticeably different,the greatest discrepancies being about IS° forstone c and about 10° for stones a and o. Five

further standing orthostats are marked by Scott: achamber orthostat on either side of h, one of which

Primary Point

- Standing Stone

c9 Fallen Slab

"'c::,':;'oo Iron Age Structure

Q2']bO Concentration of Small Stones eNo ,.,Height of Stone in metresS I

T,

III Theodolite Station

UNIVAL

+

~t%j

(}>t""......

~::I:......

(i(J)(i......

t%j

Z(it%j

1iI

T,

+

+

/AS

+~

Cl

(\

+ \~gp4

t "A '~, +~ @,"'~~.,~.f

e

~..,~o

o ~C) ~

t:+ US Q()

0°00 0

Cc:;) 0° 0 D 0 ~ OJ e0cCl 0° oC) 000 /,e::> tJ 0 (] C:5 0<:>"cJ Cl Cl 000 <:;"0

<l~

+

+

[;]T,

+

40 QC::::, ~ d

o <=> O(}o O.~ ••",0 C>0

~"'O 0 ~<>0t /AS o'V

\) SN</c:;, <0 .,;:,00

llIJc:Po

:.'

,c

o o~ 0

00-10 0 cJo Od 0 ()/1 0=

c:J VOOO" <::>0DG~~oDQa

c::J 0 0 Cl

o Cl c3'

0"""",pO 1:\ +

00 b ae:,t:::)

O ",OA Q,

o "," 000<::'0 0 \le::>

00000 D°o <::'.0 c '" 0 0 00

000<::> ClOO

= 0<00 00'"

+a \ +

10 metres/q < P

IH~ 1"

Fig. 2. Ground plan of the Unival site constructed from a theodolite survey undertaken 29 July I979

+-...

ANTIQUITY

we mark as fallen; a stone on either side of theantechamber, and a kerbstone immediately to theW of q. The positions of iron age structures are alsoin agreement, although Scott did not excavatewhat he took to be an outhouse around stone d and

marks it only as a 'disturbed area'. In conclusion,we find our plan in good broad agreement withScott's, allowing for deterioration since his excava­tion.

Thorn's plan was compared in a similar manner,but since it is only a sketch plan reproduced atsmall scale, the uncertainties are much larger. Thestones he marks as B, c and D are clearly identifiablerespectively as kerbstones band c, and the western­most chamber orthostat i; their positions (and thatof the outlier a) are in satisfactory agreement, sayto within Im. We also agree, say to within 5°, onthe orientations of stones a to c (note that Scott'sorientations fora and c differ noticeably). However,for stone iwe concur with Scott's orientation and

find Thorn's to be approximately 20° different.Other stones are marked by Thorn in outline onlybut correspond roughly in position to standingstones we have marked. They are chamberorthostats h, j, k and I and eastern kerbstonesm, n, 0 and possibly g, though this is indistinct.Northern kerbstones d and e are entirely absentfrom Thorn's plan, but a large stone to the NEseems to correspond to stone f (though roughly 2mto the S of our position for the stone). On the S ofthe site, Thorn's plan differs completely from ours.Instead of kerbstones p, q and r he marks threestones, two in outline and one labelled as E, whichoccupy positions some 2-3m inside the kerb asdetermined by us. The middle (southern-most) ofthese corresponds in orientation to stone q, but theothers (including 'E') have entirely differentorientations from p-r.

Neither our plan nor Scott's reveals any standingstone that resembles Thorn's stone E, either at orwithin several metres of the position marked byThorn. Yet this is one of four points through whicha fitted ellipse is shown. Kerbstones d and e, ifmarked on Thorn's plan, would lie at least roughlyon his ellipse, and we feel it quite possible (since,as Moir points out, four points do not uniquelydefine an ellipse) that Thorn surveyed them, fittedhis ellipse through them, and only subsequentlyomitted them. However, even so, the ellipse in­cludes a mixture of chamber orthostat and kerb­stones, and runs about 3m inside the kerb at the

south, and considerably to the west of the easternkerb.

In his sketch plan Thorn has chosen to empha­size only those standing stones which fit onto hisgeometrical construction, together with the outlier.There appears to be no other basis for selectingthese particular stones for emphasis: they are not,for example, the tallest or most conspicuousstones, as a perusal of the heights marked on FIG. 2will show. As Thorn's normal convention (Thorn,1967, 56) is to mark standing stones in black andfallen ones in outline only, there is room here forthe casual reader to be misled into thinking thatthose stones which form the ellipse are the mostprominent at the site.

The site may conceivably have been surveyed byThorn in the early 1930Sbefore Scott's excavation,and in any case remains open to continued dis­turbance: thus it would be dangerous to con­clude from this evidence alone that Thorn's surveywas necessarily in error. However, we do feel thatthere are two ways in which Thorn's work at thisparticular site is open to criticism. First, his geo­metrical construction rests upon an apparentlyarbitrary choice of stones which is unrelated to anyprimary archaeological structure revealed byScott's excavations; and secondly, the evidence ispresented in a manner which will mislead the casualreader into thinking that this particular interpreta­tion is far more clear-cut than it is.

Moir proceeds to discuss the astronomicalinterpretation of the site. Since Thorn's onlyastronomical foresight (Wiay) indicated by analignment at the site itself involves only the outliera, and since inter-site indications are unaffected bythe particular construction of the site, the discus­sion above does not in itself affect any astronomicaltheory. Because the evidence for astronomicalinterpretations of megalithic sites is cumulativeand rests necessarily upon statistical considerations,a worthwhile reassessment of megalithic astronomymust take into account evidence from revisits to

and resurveys of a large number of sites. The sameis true, separately, of any reassessment of Thorn'sgeometrical constructions, given that we are keento do something constructive with the body ofevidence presented by Thorn rather than merelyto indulge in exposing such errors as any investi­gator, especially an innovator working in an inter­disciplinary field, is wont from time to time tomake.

MEGALITHIC SCIENCE 43

Acknowledgements: 'Ve should like to express our thanksto Cilia Norris, who assisted in the survey. The workwas carried out as part of a wider project by C.R. for

which the financial support of the Science ResearchCouncil is gratefully acknowledged.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BURL, A. 1976. The stone circles of the British Isles (Lon­don).

COOKE, J. A., R. W. FEW, J. G. MORGAN & C. L. N. RUGGLES.

1977. Indicated declinations at the CallanishMegalithic Sites, Journal for the History of Astron­omy, VIII, 113-33.

DANIEL, G. E. 1975. Editorial, Antiquity, XLIX, 81.HADINGHAM, E. 1975.Circles and standing stones (London).MACKIE, E. 1974. (Ed. F. R. Hodson), The place of

astronomy in the ancient world, Phil. Trans. Roy.Soc. Lond., A, 276.

1977.Science and society in Prehistoric Britain (London).MOIR, G. 1978. Standing Stones and Astronomy in the

Outer Hebrides, Newsletter of the NorthumberlandArchaeological Group, 2, 13-23.

1979. Hoyle on Stonehenge, Antiquity, LIII, 124-8.

Book Chronicle continuedfromp. 33

Les Chasseurs de Meer by Francis Van Notenwith the collaboration of Daniel Cahen, LawrenceH. Keeley & Jan Moeyersons. Vol. XVIIIDissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses. Bruges:De Tempel, I978. Text: HI pp., I] figs., 2]tables. Illustrations: H] pIs. (plates 65-II] areloose in folder at back).

Wooden ritual artifacts from Chaco CanyonNew Mexico. The Chetro Ked Collection, byR. Gwinn, Dulce N. Dodgen & GayIe H.Hartmann. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.I978. Anthropological Papers of the University ofArizona No. ]2. I60 pp., 82figs., 5 tables. $5.95.

The Egyptian variant of the geocentric theoryof the universe by James R. Wallin. Vol. 1­Having the State's baby. San Francisco: Wallin,I979. 205 pp. $I4's0.

Les aiguilles a chas au paleolithique byDanielle Stordeur- Yedid. XII le supplement aGallia Prehistoire. Paris: Editions du CNRS,I979. 2I5 pp., 8 pis., 40 figs.

Mrica in antiquity. The arts of Ancient Nubiaand the Sudan. The catalogue II by SteffenWenig. Edited by Sylvia Hochfield & ElizabethRiefstahl. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, I978.]66 pp., frontispiece in colour, 379 figs. (some incolour).

The land of the Ancient Corinthians by JamesWiseman. Studies in Mediterranean ArchaeologyVol. I. Gothenburg: Astrom, I978. I52 pp., 2I6figs., I map. No price. Obtainable from ProfessorPaul Astrom, Sodra vagen 6I, S-4I2 54 Gothen­burg.

RCAHM-S. 1911. Royal Commission on Ancient andHistorical A1onuments, Scotland, Sutherland In­ventory (Edinburgh).

SCOTT, Sir L. 1947.The Chamber Tomb ofUnival, NorthUist, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries ofScotland, LXXXII, 1-49.

SIMPSON, D. D. A. 1969. Excavations at Kintraw, Argyll,Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,XCIX, 54-9.

THOM, A. 1967. Megalithic sites in Britain (Oxford).1971. Megalithic lunar observatories (Oxford).

THOM, A. & A. S. THOM. 1978a.Megalithic remains in Britainand Brittany (Oxford).

1978b. A reconsideration of the lunar sites in Britain,Journal for the History of Astronomy, IX, 170-9.

Kenchreai, eastern port of Corinth. V01. IVThe pottery by Beverley Adamsheck. Leiden:Brill, I979. I64 pp., 38 pIs., I4 figs. I24 guilders.

Man's conquest of the Pacific. The prehistoryof Southeast Asia and Oceania by PeterBellwood. London: Collins, I979. Auckland,Sydney: Collins, I978. 462 pp., 27 colour pIs.,27 figs. £20.00.

Vasilike ware. An early bronze age potterystyle in Crete. Results of the PhiladelphiaVasilike Ware Project by Philip P. Betancourt.Gothenburg: Astrom, I979. Studies in Mediter­ranean Archaeology. 60 pp., 8 pis., I2 figs.

The Legionary bath-house and basilica andforum at Exeter by Paul T. Bidwell. ExeterArchaeological Reports. Volume I. Exeter :Exeter City Council and the University of Exeter,I979. 262 pp" 35 pIs., 78 maps & figs. £I7.00.

Roman Scotland. A guide to the visibleremains by David J. Breeze. Newcastle uponTyne: Frank Graham, I979. 64 pp., 33 figs. £I.20.

Preserving the past by E. R. Charnberlin.London, Melbourne & Toronto: Dent, I979.222 pp., 29 pis. £6.95.

Analytical archaeologist. Collected papers ofDavid L. Clarke edited by his colleagues.London, New York, San Francisco: Academic

Press, I979. 568 pp., some figs. £I3.60,. $28.25.A corpus of wheel-thrown pottery in Angle­

Saxon graves by Vera I. Evison. London:Royal Archaeological Institute (The ArchaeologicalJournal). I55 pp., IO pls., 37 figs., 3 graphs, 5 maps.

continued on p. 79