It is by now an open secret that the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments (IAM) of the Department of the Environment (DoE) is proposing dramatic changes in the organization of rescue excavations. A corner of the veil was lifted on 22 February 1973; at the time of writing, at the end of May, the shape of the structure is tolerably clear; and sometime in June we may expect a grand unveiling ceremony. Meanwhile steps are already being taken to implement the proposals, although no paper on the new scheme has been seen by any archaeologist outside DoE. Despite the uncertainties which arise from this secrecy, it seems reasonable that readers of ANTIQUITY should receive a critical account of the scheme as it appears at the end of May. Doubtless the official announcement will appear elsewhere in these pages at the earliest possible date, and statements of fact in that must be taken as superseding similar statements here.

When the Anglo-Saxons invaded England, about the middle of the fifth century, they came as barbarians in the proper and Roman sense of the word, illiterate and unpolished. At the beginning, too, their religion was a paganism at variance with imperial Christianity. Yet they cannot have been the blundering creatures they are sometimes taken for: within a few generations this assortment of tribes had produced scholarship of European standing, in the persons of Aldhelm and Bede, and as to the decorative arts their jewelry and illumination of manuscripts—not forgetting Irish influence—were a match for anyone in the western world. Fierce and warlike at first, guilty of unprovoked aggression, most of them soon settled down to become peaceful farmers.

The origins of man and the beginnings of culture in China were taken for granted in traditional Chinese history. Man was either simply evolved in the creation of the world or created by supernatural beings. In historical times all the peoples of China were recognized as the descendants of Huang-ti, the Yellow Emperor, and the basic cultural practices were attributed to the various rulers in remote antiquity. They formed a continuous sequence with its beginnings in the third millennium BC, followed by a succession of dynasties for some 5,000 years until the present day.

Since the last war three new branches of archaeology have grown up in Great Britain. Two of these are now established and accepted divisions of the subject, with national societies devoted to their study and reputable journals for the more important work in their fields. The third has failed to establish itself and for many archaeologists remains no more than a curious oddity. Why has 'industrial archaeology' not received the scholarly recognition accorded medieval and post-medieval archaeology? Why has Industrial Archaeology not joined Medieval Archaeology and Post-Medieval Archaeology as an important outlet for archaeological research ? That these are questions in need of answer has now been recognized by at least some of those engaged in 'industrial archaeology' and it seems generally agreed that the subject is at a turning point, a 'teenage' stage, from which it can either advance or regress (e.g. Buchanan, 1970; Symonds, 1972; Harris, 1970; Hudson, 1971-73). In what direction it should advance is a problem that has yet to be solved.