As the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India for more than thirty years, at a time when new finds of Gandhāra art were constantly pouring in, as the excavator of Taxila, as an excavator in Gandhāra itself, Sir John Marshall has had a unique opportunity of building up first-hand knowledge of Gandhāra art. That his views on this great subject should be made known was most desirable, and the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan is to be thanked for having undertaken to publish this volume.

The illustration is abundant and, nearly all of it, excellent. It consists of 152 photographs, of sufficient size (in happy contrast with most of the pictures in Foucher’s Art grécobouddhique, and in some of Sir John Marshall’s own publications, Taxila included), carefully selected and arranged in order to exemplify the development of .‘the Early School’, as seen by Sir John. Many a piece is here properly reproduced for the first time. As a compendium of good pictures the volume will be most useful.

But the book is far more than just an album of well-chosen photographs, with commentary. As the subtitle says, it is a story. This story is told in twelve chapters. An introduction (Chapter 1) deals with the beginnings of Buddhism in India, and with the problem of how Buddhism fared under the Greek princes of the North-West during the second century B.C.… Among the myriads of Buddhist monuments that are preserved there is not one that can be referred with certainty to Greek authorship in that period (p. 4). Chapter 2 is about the Early Indian school of Art. Then come three chapters on the origins: Chapter 3, The Beginning of Gandhāra art: the Šaka period; Chapter 4, The Renaissance of Hellenistic art under the Parthians and its eflect on Gandhāra art; Chapter 5, Childhood of Gandhāra art. To Adolescence two chapters are devoted (Chapters 6 and 7), to Maturity four: Chapter 8 deals with the Period of Maturity in general; Chapter 9 with the Early Maturity period; the two following ones deal with the Later Maturity period, Chapter 10 with the reliefs, and Chapter 11 is about images and decorative carvings. Chapter 12 gives the conclusions.

Just over sfty years ago the puzzling Red Hills on the coast of Essex were arousing considerable interest among English prehistorians (PLATE XXII (a) and (b)). Already in the spring of 1906, under the chairmanship of J. Chalkley Gould and supported by the Essex Field Club, the Society of Antiquaries of London had formed a ‘Red Hills Exploration Committee’, which counted among its members not only archaeologists but also geologists, botanists and chemists, and had ample means at its disposal. Eminent specialists and scholars examined suitable hills with the utmost care and published their findings and conclusions in comprehensive papers.

But in what consists the peculiarity and the riddle of these Red Hills, which obviously date back to prehistoric times and have since time immemorial lain in close proximity to the coast of England? The striking way in which they are built of loose red burnt clay unmistakably points to a human-made origin. As a rule these mounds rise by only as much as 18 in. to 6 ft. above their surroundings, and their extent varies between a few square yards to several hundred. How did these numerous and extensive heaps of burnt clay come about in prehistoric times?

The object of this paper is to show that certain Early Bronze Age sites in the Iberian Peninsula are actually colonies established by people coming from the Eastern Mediterranean.

The term ‘colony’ is used here in contrast to the term ‘culture’. It is selected because, besides being the term used by Siret, who believed that Los Millares was a Phoenician colony, and the Leisners (Factorei), it is the term which best describes these sites. The following account will demonstrate that they were solitary, heavily-defended settlements situated in a culturally foreign environment. Their best parallels are to be found in the East Mediterranean area, where, from very early times politically independent city states which owed their existence to either a rich hinterland or to trade and commerce, are known. These sites in the Peninsula may, in fact, be regarded as primitive examples of the types of colonies established later by the Phoenicians and the Greeks.

The early farming culture of Southern Turkmenistan, widely known since the work of R. Pumpelly at Anau, has been systematically studied during the last decade by Soviet archaeologists. Excavation of the major settlement of this culture, Namazga Tepe, has made it possible to propose a new stratigraphy (Namazga periods I-VI). The Namazga III period fills the gap between Anau II and Anau III, and has its closest analogies on Iranian sites such as Sialk III, 4-7, and Hissar IB to IIA; it is now possible to revise the synchronization of sites in Turkmenia and Iran proposed by McCown. (See table on p. 212).

J J. A. Worsaae’s recorded words during his travels in the British Isles in 1846-7 indicate that he neither underestimated the significance of his visit, nor lacked confidence in the tenability of the ideas he expressed. His previous journeys in Norway, Sweden and Germany were a useful preparatory experience. Notwithstanding his youth and his high spirits, Worsaae must have appreciated his influential position as the exponent in Britain of ‘an entirely new enquiry into the history of the earliest state of the European nations, by means of the antiquities alone’. The discovery of ‘a stone period, in the history of Europe’ was, he declared, the first achievement and the vindication of the method.

The scientific study of rural settlement in Britain was initiated in 1883 when Seebohm published The English Village Community. In this study he argued for a continuity between the Roman villa and the Anglo-Saxon vi1lage. In 1897, however, Maitland published his Domesday Book and Beyond by way of rejoinder to Seebohm’s views. Thereafter it became customary for historians, geographers and archaeologists alike to regard the nucleated settlements of the English lowlands as Anglo-Saxon creations, implanted by groups of free English settlers in a countryside emptied, by force or fear, of its Romano-British occupants. Of late this hypothesis, which lays so much stress on Germanic as distinct from earlier achievements, has come under criticism from several quarters. Archaeologists are increasingly conscious of the survival into the Dark Ages of a British tradition in ornamentation even in England. As a philologist, Jackson has adduced sufficient linguistic evidence to undermine, even for eastern Britain, the old theory of the nearcomplete extermination of the Celts and has argued for a bilingual phase when English settlement was being effected. On a narrow front in the Cotswolds the historian, Finberg, has cogently portrayed various facets of continuity between the Roman villa and the adjoining village at Withington. On a broader front, Aston has demonstrated the limitations of Maitland’s thesis on the origin of the manor; he suggests that the primary Anglo-Saxon penetration of England was carried out not by freemen, each owning one hide of land, but under lordly direction and was therefore organized by large estates. The vacuum created by this sapping of the traditional view of Anglo-Saxon settlement has not been filled by the adoption of a convincing alternative hypothesis. This absence of an alternative is largely due to fundamental misconceptions about the organization of that Celtic society which occupied England before the advent of either Romans or Saxons. The purpose of this article is to remove these misconceptions and, by so doing, to show that the basic patterns of settlement distribution in the English lowlands date from at least Celtic times.