The Trucial Oman States in Eastern Arabia have been intermittently in the news since withdrawal from the area was announced in 1968. At that time, Mr D. B. Doe and I were engaged in a brief survey of archaeological sites in the Sheikhdom of Ras al-Khaimah subsequently extended to a stretch of the eastern coast from Kalba to Khawr Fakkan (FIG. I). An awareness of political boundaries is essential in the Oman peninsula because the extreme north and a large part of the southeastern sector south of Kalba lie in the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, a territory which is virtually closed to foreigners.

Over the last few decades, much interest has centred on the use of spectrographic analyses of Bronze Age objects as a means of classification to produce groups for subsequent archaeological assessment. Separate research teams have used differing systems to classify their results, the most comprehensive work being that of the Stuttgart school, published in two volumes, SAM I and SAM 2 by Junghans, Sangmeister and Schroder (1960; 1968).

Not long ago the theoretical literature in archaeology dealt mainly with excavation techniques and the primary analysis of archaeological data. In recent years, the successful realization of many of these empirical objectives, plus a rapidly increasing corpus of data, have motivated a younger generation of archaeologists to investigate more carefully the problems that are involved in the explanation of these data and the study of prehistory in general. This concern has produced a spate of publications which, although they often disagree radically about particular issues, are attempting (a) to investigate the theoretical structure of prehistoric archaeology, (b) to formulate a more rigorous canon for the interpretation of archaeological data, and (c) to pioneer new methods of analysis (Binford, S. R. and L. R., 1968; Chang, 1967 and 1968; Clarke, 1968; Trigger, 1968).

The first phase of development of the radiocarbon dating method covers the first two decades since its beginning in 1949. During this period it was characterized by the fact that many of the assumptions on which it had been based remained outside the effective control of the scientists. Although it was clear that its principles were basically sound and, consequently, that it could yield reliable dates within certain limits, it was not yet able to persuade all the archaeologists who should have been the first to benefit from its success. In fact, especially in Europe, most archaeologists did not give it a very favourable reception.

When 0. G. S. Crawford investigated a length of bank and ditch in Kincladie Wood near Dunning, in Perthshire, he observed that ‘the possibility that it might be a fragment of a Roman camp cannot be excluded’ (1948, 59). Kincladie Wood is 2 km. from the hill at Duncrub, a locality that has been equated philologically with the early historical Dorsum Crup (Watson, 1926, 56). We are assured by philologists that Mons Craupius, too, can be added to the equation.* The case which follows for identifying the hill at Duncrub with Mons Craupius, in which the philological proposition is supported by archaeological evidence, is offered to mark the 50th anniversary of Crawford’s appointment as first Archaeology Officer in the Ordnance Survey.

Many scientific journals throughout the world have marked these anniversaries with papers on various aspects of Marxism and its significance, written from various viewpoints. The journal ANTIQUITY, showing itself, as usual, more active and alert than the others, commissioned an article in 1965 from M. W. Thompson on ‘Marxism and Culture’ (1965, 108–116). However, Dr Thompson’s review of the significance of Marxism for archaeology is quite contrary to my own and amounts, in fact, to a completely negative appraisal. I feel, therefore, that it would be appropriate to answer Dr Thompson’s article in celebration of the anniversaries not only because my basically positive appraisal is more suited to the jubilee mood (1 well understand that this anniversary is interpreted in different ways in various circles), but also to clear up certain misunderstandings, and to help readers to form a more objective opinion of Thompson’s article by listening to the other side.

In discussing contemporary wool production the Elder Pliny comments (NH, VIII, 192): 'oddments of wool from the fullers" coppers are used for stuffing bolsters-an invention of the Gauls, I think; at any rate, the process is distinguished by Gallic terms today.'