Ley Lines culture clash

The subject was the nature of an epic battle in the 1970s between the archaeological establishment and the alternative theorists. Although I had wandered the stones of Stonehenge as a child in the Seventies, I first discovered the appeal of standing stones when touring some of the sites in a friend's camper van in the Eighties.

I have often found the best way of discovering site is to pick up guides written by local people with a passion for the stones of their area. These tend to be of the 'earth mysteries' persuasion rather than from an archaeological background. You only really find these guides in independent local bookshops of the area, often photocopied or duplicated where a local author has run off a hundred or so copies. Although computer technology has improved the presentation from the typed 'inkies' of the Seventies, the consolidation of bookshops and retailing generally during the Thatcher years and the 1990s meant these local guides could get harder to find though more are probably made.

There is definitely a different slant in earth mysteries writing after the ley line battle was lost - the bright spark of the Earth Mysteries groups which seemed to have blazed brightly in the late 1960s and particularly the 1970s was dulled by the fallout, which the archaeological establishment won convincingly. I'd always wanted to know what had gone on, and why the mention of the subject seemed to cause lots of shuffling and an urge to change the subject, together with a timidity in dealing with alignments of any sort in much of the earth mysteries literature after the early 1980s.. The 1970s newsletter 'The Ley Hunter' has been put on the web at http://www.tlh6976.fsnet.co.uk/ by Jim Goddard, the original editor of the newsletter, and here is the story, and my attempt to replicate the results of John Mitchell's Cornish sites results which seemed to be at the centre of the barney. A lot of things make this job easier now than it was in the 1970s - in particular drawing lines on maps is no longer as destructive as it used to be!

The original concept of ley lines was proposed by Alfred Watkins, a photographer in Herefordshire who published 'The Old Straight Track' In it he wrote

"Imagine a fairy chain stretched from mountain peak to mountain peak, as far as the eye could reach, and paid out until it reached the "high places" of the earth at a number of ridges, banks, and knolls. Then visualise a mound, circular earthwork, or clump of trees, planted on these high points, and in low points in the valley other mounds ringed around with water to be seen from a distance. Then great standing stones brought to mark the way at intervals, and on a bank leading up to a mountain ridge or down to a ford the track cut deep so as to form a guiding notch on the skyline as you come up.... Here and there, at two ends of the way, a beacon fire used to lay out the track. With ponds dug on the line, or streams banked up into "flashes" to form reflecting points on the beacon track so that it might be checked when at least once a year the beacon was fired on the traditional day. All these works exactly on the sighting line."

You have to have a heart of iron to not be inspired by that passage - it brings a vision of ancient people alive in the mind in a way that few academic texts on archaeological sites do. It seemed reasonable to take out an ad in the fledgling journal Antiquity, edited by OGS Crawford, a pioneer of aerial photography in archaeology and who had worked with Keiller on Avebury in 1934. Watkins should have scented problems on reading Crawford's founding editorial of March 1927, which set out its aims clearly.

"ANTIQUITY will attempt to summarize and criticize the work of those who are recreating the past. Archaeology is a branch of science which achieves its results by means of excavation, field-work and comparative studies; it is founded upon the observation and record of facts. Today the accumulated riches of years lie to our hand, and the time is ripe for interpretation and synthesis. We are emerging from the archaic stage, and we are able at last to see single facts in their relation to an organic whole - the history of Man. Simplification supervenes, and the outline of the past becomes intelligible. Here and there attempts are made to summarize a period or interpret a group of facts but they seldom reach the general public, and remain buried in obscure publications. ANTIQUITY will publish creative work of this character."

So far, so good. However, Crawford continues -

The Editor has secured the willing support of specialists who will contribute popular but authoritative accounts of their own researches. Knowledge thus acquired is alive, for it is derived at first hand from things, not merely compiled from books. Each article will be but a tiny facet of the whole ; for our field is the Earth, our range in time a million years or so, our subject the human race.

We shall keep our readers informed about important discoveries made and books published; and we shall warn them of mare's nests. Many so-called discoveries are nothing but newspaper "stunts"; many best-sellers are written by quacks. The public is humbugged, but it is nobody's business to expose the fraud. Such books are ignored by the learned world. Reviewers in literary papers are therefore tolerant, if not favourable, for they hear no word of dissent; there is a demand for stuff like this, and the case goes by default. Every page may contain gross errors and wild guesses which pass unchallenged. The antidote is to create a sound and informed body of opinion, and to make it articulate".

which shows he has a limited tolerance for speculation, and Watkins' thesis is highly speculative. It supposes a high degree of abstraction. A map is a bird's eye view, and over long distances the UTM projection of the OS grid makes 'straight' questionable, though this does not affect lines over just one Landranger sheet (25km x 25km). Watkins' theory of how the straight track is achieved, namely lighting fires at the end points and using sighting staffs, is reasonable, but errors creep in. This can be seen in the track of Roman roads, which are a succession of straight segments with ever so slight kinks between the sections, even in sections like the Fosse Way, when the road runs for long distances without passing through any settlements which might give reason to divert the course.

There is something delicious about Crawford rejecting Watkins' ad since Crawford had been Archaeology Officer for the Ordnance Survey, and was instrumental is saving the early Ordnance Survey maps in 1939 before the OS offices were bombed, removing them to his home [45].

This set the stage for the young editor of the Ley Hunter magazine to repeat the battle three and a half decades later. Paul Screeton was 24 years old when he picked up the baton and took on the Establishment as the editor of a dense typewritten newsletter titled The Ley Hunter, and the target was once again Antiquity. Crawford's action had pitched ley hunters against the archaeology establishment, and yet his action in saving the maps is one of the reasons why there were still the records of many of archaeological sites on the OS maps, and were the only reason that older sites which had been destroyed in the 20th century could still be referenced on ley lines!

Screeton's youthful enthusiasm of his June 1970 editorial hits the editor of Antiquity with both barrels:

Glyn Daniel in a fit of paranoia, seeing the tidy present-
day archaeological theories crumbling to the state of the 
ruins they pretend to understand, lashes blindly at many peo-
ple who ley hunters respect in the March-May quarter issue 
of "Antiquity." Maybe it would have been as well to ignore the
ludicrous put-down of Professor Lyle Borst, John Mitchell and
Ian Rodger, but my policy has always been to present every-
thing I can bearing on our study, and to draw attention to the
fearful narrow-mindedness of those professional archaeolog-
ists who shun the evidence of the ley system and its implic-
ations - which casts grave doubts on their qualifications to
pontificate on our ancestors.

  Briefly, Dr Daniel begins with an attack on Prof. Borst's
"highly personalized and deplorable astro-archaeology," goes
on to claim the editors of "Nature" were taken in by Borst,
and that Sir John Betjeman was wrong to take such a stand
against possible destruction of Wing Church by the tarmacad-
emicians who propose the site could well be made an airport.
Next the B.B.C. come in for a brickbat for letting Ian Rod-
ger give his talk "Megalithic Mathematics." In this context
Dr. Daniel comments "we were back at once to the old straight-
trackers." Then he ponders in print as to whether the print-
ing of this, a book review by Prof. R.J.C. Atkinson, and a book
review by Geoffrey Grigson were maybe included purely for
fun. Unsurprisingly the vitriolic trash by Grigson (who sugg-
ests in "The Shell Country Alphabet" that some Bronze Age 
circles "may be all that is left of circular cattle pens or
stockades surrounding a homestead") on "The View Over Atla-
ntis" is lauded as "brilliant." John Michell's impressive
book is described as "one of the dottiest books to have
appeared for some while."

  Dr. Daniel is no doubt a busy man, but perhaps he would
write an article or letter for "The Ley Hunter" setting out
his conclusions on the countrywide system of prehistoric
alignments. I shall send him a copy of this issue so he may
judge for himself how seriously we take our study, and will
gladly give him space in the magazine to reply.

Whoa - don't hold the horses :) Glyn Daniel took up the bait, and his response, dripping with sarcasm, was duly printed in the July 1970 issue of "The Ley Hunter"

            READERS' FORUM
            ==============
  From Glyn Daniel:
  I am always delighted to get letters from what my
predecessor as Editor of ANTIQUITY described as 'the
lunatic fringe of archaeology', and it was kind of you 
to send me a copy of The Ley Hunter. I naturally cannot 
often find space in ANTIQUITY to comment on these very
marginal activities - not, I know, marginal to you but to
the readers of ANTIQUITY - but I may be able to find space
to say something about your magazine in the December number.
  I hope you do realise that it is not just myself
but practically every serious archaeologist who finds no 
cogency or conviction in the various arguments put out
by straight trackers. I must congratulate you on the
title of your article on page 2. 
  Thank you again for writing.
  -/-

For what it's worth the article that tickled Daniel's fancy was entitled "Bats, Ghosts, Old Mother Midnight and the Wishing Stone", the article was about a visit to Hart Village, and Paul Screeton had a newspaperman's gift for a headline!

John Michell (author of "A View over Atlantis" which had taken a hit in Daniel's Antiquity review) weighed in on the letters page in the next (August 1970) issue, adding some fuel to the fire

From John Michell:
  Dear Paul,
  Your correspondent, Dr Glyn Daniel, appears to believe
that unreasoned abuse is a more effective instrument of 
criticism that reasonable treatment of evidence. Despite 
what he says, however, there is growing interest in the
ley system among archaeologists, although few are prepared
to commit themselves to further research until it is poss-
ible to find the scientific proof that Alfred Watkins was 
right, and that ancient stones were deliberately placed
across the country in straight alignments. Since you kindly
asked me to contribute to "The Ley Hunter", I should like
to describe some results of researches in West Cornwall,
which appear to demonstrate the fact of leys beyond any 
possible doubt.

  Several attempts have been made over the years since
the publication of Watkins's "The Old Straight Track" to 
find a statistical proof that prehistoric alignments were 
deliberately set and do not merely occur by chance. The
results have never been entirely satisfactory, for there
are many uncertain aspects of the ley system that still
elude precise classification. There is, however, one 
method by which it is possible to prove the existence of
planned alignments or leys beyond the possibility of 
coincidence, and the correct approach is indicated by
Watkins in his "The Ley Hunter's Manual", in the chapter
dealing with ley hunting and astronomical archaeology.

  Watkins points out that the same ley phenomena are 
studied both by those who investigate leys and by scientists
who are concerned wit the astronomical significance of 
stone circles. But while the astronomers such as Lockyer and
Thom use large scale plans of a small area and concern them-
selves only with short alignments in the immediate vicinity
of a circle, which indicate a significant astronomical
declination, followers of Watkins have come to the further
realization that these same alignments may often be extended,
over many miles of country to other prehistoric points,
forming a long distance ley. If this can be shown to be in
fact the case, the existence of leys is put beyond doubt, 
for the possibility of prehistoric stones falling by chance
exactly on those very lines, which have already been indep-
endently established as prehistoric astronomical lines, is
too remote to be considered.
                      --OoO--

The Survey, along with a recent map representation can be read here.

A copy of the August issue was sent to Glyn Daniel, the editor of Antiquity and all seemed to go quiet until Paul Screeton got wind of a response, which he detailed in the December issue of the Ley Hunter, in a piece titled "The View Over Ivory Towers"

                 The View Over Ivory Towers
	The editor of "The Ley Hunter" and John Michell have tried
to persuade the professional archaeologists that leys are
worthy of their attention. The attempt has proved abortive. 
The following is a step by step account of the moves we
made in the hopes of gaining recognition for the ley 
system from the orthodox archaeologists.

  The August issue of "The Ley Hunter" included an article
by John Michell on a thorough, scientific piece of research
into Megalithic alignments in a part of Cornwall. The 
alignments being traced on maps and examined in situ. A
copy of this issue was sent to Dr Glyn Daniel for his comments

(Ed - you can read that here. Though possible to follow, Michell could have made this easier to try and reproduce with grid refs of all stones on the leys)

                       -/-
   Hearing that Dr Daniel, the editor of "Antiquity", had 
written somewhat abusively about ley hunters, myself, and 
others in the September number of this publication, I
sent for a copy.

   Dr Daniel wrote: "Mr Paul Screeton takes us to task for
some of our jibes at what the previous editor of ANTQUITY 
called 'the lunatic fringe of archaeology'. He says, in a 
letter: 'I found your comments about straight trackers, 
John Michell and Professor Borst most odious and unwarr-
anted.....your comments reveal either narrow-mindedness
or ignorance of the present evaluation and allied avid-
ence of a highly technical civilization in Bronze Age 
Britain. I find what I can only assume to be utter con-
tempt for our researches and evidence most disturbing in
someone with so high a reputation in archaeological 
circles.' Mr Screeton was kind enough to send me a copy 
of a journal he edits called The Ley Hunter, which is
certainly a collectors piece for those archaeologists
who, for personal interest, or from professional
necessity (like the editor of ANTIQUITY), have to keep
abreast with the widening lunatic fringes of a subject
now an accepted part of humanistic study everywhere.... 

   "I had not thought that any archaeologists who were 
seriously occupied with the study of the ancient past 
would dismiss any theory without giving the most serious
and careful consideration, and it is in this way that
most people dismiss as extravagant nonsense the ideas of
Prof. Elliot Smith that all civilization came from Mesopotamia,
or of others that America was first colonized by Madoc or
Brendan or the Phoenicians. The straight trackers, the
ley hunters, John Michell and Professor Borst are all
part of this extravagant nonsense......."

   Dr Daniel then gives the address of "The Ley Hunter"
for the benfit of those who wish to mock what the
"beyond-the-fringers" are researching, and then purposely
misinterprets an article of mine on Hart to gain comic 
effect. He ends with: "But how sad it is that so many
obviously intelligent and interested people these days
should spend their time writing and thinking dottiness
while the whole world of man's past endeavour and chi-
evement is theirs to appreciate, understand and admire."

  When writing for a copy of this 15/- publication (a
voucher copy and invitation to reply to the criticisms
might have been in order), I inquired about advertise-
ment rates. I had no intention of advertising "The Ley
Hunter" in the magazine, but was curious to see if Dr
Daniel would follow the policy of O.G.S. Crawford, who
in the 1930s refused a paid advertisement for Alfred
Watkins's "The Old Straight Track." However, someone
acting for "Antiquity" forwarded an advertisement
rates card.

I then received the following letter from Dr Daniel,
dated September 22:
   "Thank you for your letter of 7 September and for
sending me a copy of the current issue of The Ley
Hunter.
   "I am afraid that mr John Michell's article convinces 
me in no way, but you will see that I have put a few
more comments in the September Editorial of Antiquity.
But I do not propose to continue this discussion, which
has been ventilated sufficiently in the pages of
Antiquity. Nor am I prepared to print an advertisement
for The Ley Hunter. And, in this, I take the same point
of view as did my predecessor, O.G.S. Crawford, who
declined to print an advertisment of Watkins's book.
We cannot really advertise in a serious and learned
journal, with a world-wide circulation, books and magaz-
ines which, as I have said before, belong to what I regard
as, to quote Crawford 'the lunatic fringe of archaeology'.
   "These may seem hard words to you and others of your
persuasion, but it would be unkind and unhelpful to
dissimulate my views."                  -/-
John Michell then wrote to me with and offer to be
made to Dr Daniel. From John's letter I wrote the following to Dr Daniel:
   "I do not wish to be a nuisance, taking up your valuable
time, but I wish to make a proposition.
"If you will appoint a representative, perhaps a student,
to spend an hour with John Michell looking at the
documented evidence of Cornish Megalithic Alignment, then
if he is mot convinced that those alignments exist, John
Michell will pay £50 to a fund of your choice. If your rep-
resentative is convniced than a factual article on the sub-
ject is to be published in 'Antiquity.'   
"John Michell will pay any expenses involved and I will
arrange the meeting with John.
"I hope you will find this proposal acceptable."
                  -/-
Dr Daniel's reply of October 9:
	"Thank you very much for your letter of 1 October.
	"No, you are certainly not being a nuisance and certainly 
not wasting my time. As a person who writes and lectures
about the history pf archaeology, I am only too well aware
that writers who have from time to time seemed well away
from established lines have, subsequently, been shown to
be right.

   "Your proposal is an interesting one, but I think what
you should do is get John Michell to talk to somebody who
knows about Cornish megalithic alignments (Do you really 
mean Cornish, ro do you mean Devon?). I suggest you write
to Lady Fox in the Department of Archaeology in the Univer-
sity of Exeter, or Professor Charles Thomas, who is head of
the Department of Archaeology in the University of Leicester.
Tell me what both these people say: I trust their judgments.
Why not write to them both, which will give you and Michell
independent testimony."                    -/-

The following letter was sent by me to Lady Fox and Prof. Thomas:

   "As an expert on Cornish megalithic alignments, I wonder
if it would be possible for you to give an opinion on the
letter on pages 13-18 by John Michell in the issue of "The
Ley Hunter" which I enclose.

   "As editor of "The Ley Hunter" I am anxious, together
with fellow researchers, to confirm the validity of Alfred
Watkins's discoveries in this field. John Michell, whose
book 'The View Over Atlantis' you may have read, is as
keen as I am to see leys studies not only by amateurs but
by professional archaeologists.

   "You have probably read Dr Daniel's comments on the subject
in 'Antiquity.' Following his diatribe against ley research,
I made him an offer that John Michell will pay £50 to any
charity he chooses to name if a representative whom he
names is not convinced that these alignments exist. If the
representative is convinced then a factual article on the
subject is to be published in 'Antiquity'.

   "In fact you are one of the two people he regards as an expert
in this field and whose judgment he trusts.

   "I hope the letter/article will be sufficeint to prove our
point, but should you require further precise evidence, John
Michell is willing, at his own expense, to arrange a meeting
with you, at which you may study his maps.

   "I hope that this request is not too much trouble to you,
but I believe that leys are a reality, requiring further
investigation by professional as well as amateur archaeo-
logists."
                   -/-
From Prof. Charles Thomas:
	"Thank you for your letter, and the enclosed, which I
return. The examination of Mr. Michell's remarks in any 
detail would, however, require far more time than I have 
at my disposal in the foreseeable future - under pressure
of both my academic and my public duties - and I suggest
you approach someone else.
                   -/-
	From Lady Fox:
	"I am not an expert on Cornish megalthic (sic) alignments.
My only comments on the ley Hunter is to remind you that a
straight line is the shortest distance between any two given
points, and that all prehistoric monuments are not contem-
porary.
                   -/-

From Dr Daniel:

   "Lady Fox has sent me your letter to her of 21 October in
which you say:-

I made him an offer that John Michell will pay £50 to
any charity he chooses to name if a representative whom he
names is not convinced that these alignments exist. If the 
representative is convinced then a factual article on the 
subject is to be published in Antiquity. In fact you are one 
of two people he regards as an expert in this field and whose 
judgment he trusts.'

   "I am writing to point out that this is a misrepresentation
of what I said. I have never at any time promised to publish
an article in Antiquity of the kind you mention and I did
not say that Lady Fox was an expert on Cornish Alignments.

   "It is clear from the nonsense that you and your associ-
ates put in The Ley Hunter that you are incapable of reading
straightforward books on archaeology and understanding what
they are about. This I can forgive, but I cannot forgive
direct misrepresentation of a letter to you. May we now
please bring our correspondence to an end."
                 -/-
A RIDICULOUS  ------------- JOHN MICHELL'S 
EPISODE                           COMMENTS
   Anyone who fails to understand why it is that so many
students are dissatisfied with the standards of academic
scholarship and integrity at the universities may be int-
erested in the following account.

In No. 10 of "The Ley Hunter" I wrote an article des-
cribing some megalithic stone alignments in West Cornwall.
The intention was to demostrate that astronomical align-
ments already established as such by the astronomer -
archaeologist Sir Normal Lockyer and set out as diagrams
in his book Stonehenge, are more significant that has
previously been realized, for they continue over other
megalithic stones at some distance from the stone circle
from which they are set in a way which can not be coincid-
ental.

   The editor send this article to Dr. Glyn Daniel for his
comments, which were to the effect that he found the art-
icle unconvincing.

   The purpose in writing the article was not to "convince"
D r Daniel or anyone else, not to convert them to any part-
icular theory. I merely pointed out the facts which may be
confirmed by anybody on inspection of the 6 inch map. At the
same time I suggested that these stones, many of which are
not recorded, should be properly surveyed and made known to 
archaeologists.

   Dr Danel's comment that he found my evidence uncon-
vincing could only mean that he doubted either the existence
of these stones or their geographical positions as stated.
Yet my authority is the 6" O.S. map, generally accepted as
accurate. I therefore requested him to appoint a representative
to examine my maps, and as an inducement I offered to cover
all expenses and to pay a sum of money to any fund of Dr
Daniel's choice if his nominee should consider that my
evidence was invalid. Should it be found correct, Dr Daniel
was to publish a short, factual note in Antiquity. I 
required only the space which he has recently devoted to 
attacks on Watkins, myeslf, "The Ley Hunter", and our 
subject in general, to which we have no means of making any
audible reply.

   Dr Daniel acknowledged the communication and nominated
Prof. Thomas of Leicester and lady Fox of Exeter as arch-
aeologists whose judgment he trusted.

   Prof. Thomas, when approached, answered that he was too
busy with academic and public duties and declined to review
the evidence.

   This is scarcely a matter for complaint; if this man
does not wish to know the facts in his subject, no one
will compel him. But this blank refusal directly contra-
dicts Dr Daniel's statement in a recent Antiquity editorial:
"I had not thought that any archaeologists who were seriously 
occupied with the study of the ancient past would dismiss 
any theory without giving the most serious and careful 
consideration." Not only does Prof. Thomas refuse to con-
sider the theory, the will not hear facts.

   Lady Fox's contribution was the observation that the
shortest distance between two points is a straight line. 
The purpose of this comment is obscure; the lady is either
ignorant of her subject, or - and this is more disturbingly
probably - desperately concerned not to compromise her pos-
ition by even considering facts which might tend to confirm
theories that her professional colleagues have declared
heretical.

   As a final absurdity, Dr Daniel wrote to Paul Screeton
accusing him of distoring his meaning, even though Paul
did no more than transmit my offer and iots acceptance in
exactly the same terms as set out in the correspondence. Dr
Daniel then declared the matter closed.

   The whole episode reflects extreme discredit on Dr Daniel,
who has acted throughout in a way which may aptly be described
as deceitful, and it must astonish anyone who has ever bel-
ieved that archaeologists are scientists concerned with dis-
covering the truth about the the past. Until members of this
profession are prepared to consider factual evidence, from
whatever sources, the position remains as A.M Hobart wrote
in 1927 in Kingship that "archaeology can scarcely claim to
be considered a science."

   Dr. Daniel suggests we read some straightforward books on
archaeology. Which does he suggest? His own are based through-
out on assumptions now known to be false and on theories
which, as Prof. Thom has conclusively demonstrated, are
totally unfounded. This is probably the root cause of his
attitude. Almost every academic book on archaeology, includ-
ing those of the modern predecessors of the subject, are
founded on such deep misconceptions that they are practically
valueless. In fact most are actively pernicious in that they
encourage the destruction of ancient sites by clumsy excav-
ation, thus removing any evidence which would later be of sig-
nificance. Among established archaeologists there appears to
be a complete lack of comprehension of recent developments
in their field, and this is so blatant that Dr Daniel was
able to praise a recent review in the Listener which derived
its authority form a remark by the long discredited Maxist
theorist, Gordon Childe, to the effect that megalithic men,
poorly clad in cold weather, could never have cared to
practise astronomy in Britain. If Dr. Daniels knows of any
reliable, up to date works on Megalithic sites, other than
those of lockyer, Watkins and Thom, we would be grateful 
for the recommendation.

   All this is a waste of time and spirit, but it is a
terrifying state of affairs that an entire profession is 
so intimidated by its establishment that no member dare
consider unpopular facts for fear fo receiveing the same
tratement as was accorded to Watkins and Lethbridge. Dr
Daniel's devious behaviour in the above matter derives
from the fact that he is simply unwilling to face the
consequences of being shown wrong.

  If any archaeologist cosiders these remarks unjust, 
he may prove them so by indicating his willingness to 
consider the facts of the case.
CONDUCT  ------------------------------ The editor sums up
UNBECOMING                              the sordid episode

   The material on pages D1, D2, D3, and D4, being
factual, speaks for itself; John Michell's appraisal
is reasoned and contains nothing with which I do not
agree wholeheartedly. There is really very little left
for me to say. It is up to the reader to decide whether
there was any muisrepresentation, and decide whether Dr.
Daniel and his cohorts have behaved unbecomingly.

   Pertaining directly to the attitudes of those quoted 
above, here are a number of other comements made recently,
which I want to put before you.

   On October 31, B.B.C.-2 screened a 30-minute document-
ary on Professor Alexander Thom, former professor of
engineering science at Oxford University, who has sur-
veyed a great number of megalithic stone circles. In the
programme we heard Professor Stuart Piggott absurdly 
state that archaeologists are the only persons qualified
to study archaeology and make judgments on the subject.

   In an article, regarding the programme, in the Radio
Times, Dr Daniel is quoted as saying: 'I think the first
thing one must remember is that all the professional
archaeologists are beset by what has been called the
lunatic fringe of archaeology and the second thing is
that Professor Thom is not part of this." Hands up those
who know just who he was referring to.

   Prof. Thom, a brilliant man, has not been accepted by
all the "top" archaeologists, however. Of megalithic men
he says: "The boys knew what they were doing." I don't
know why he should call them "boys" when he stated that
they were further advanced scientifically than himself.

   At the BUFORA meeting (reported elsewhere in this issue)
Mrs Carey, of Corton, Warminster, claimed she had found
that a number fo distances between megalithic sites kept
repeating and repeating on maps, and she deduced there to
some for of standard measurements used in Neolithic
times. She told the meeting that she had written to Prof.
Richard Atkinson, who replied to the effect that this 
could only be coincidental as these people, he knew 
could not have managed to lay things out to specific
measurements.

  Lastly, if any reader is a great follower of Dr Daniel's
opinions, the November 5, 1970, "Daily Express" provides
food for thought. In an article by Sheila Hutchins on
simple meals, Dr Daniel is quoted on childhood dinners
in a Carmarthenshire farmhouse where he tucked in to
cockles, trout, cheese and buttermilk.