.
Artefact-hunter Howland had a few scathing words ('The man with No Name is back', Sept 13th) about the "Glasgow Fourth" definition of "nighthawking". A fortnight ago, he urged detectorists to seek some informed archaeological opinions on it and those who write on it. He asked his UK readers to print off a copy of the discussion of the matter and take it to their local FLO or detectorist-friendly neighbourhood archaeologist:
Artefact-hunter Howland had a few scathing words ('The man with No Name is back', Sept 13th) about the "Glasgow Fourth" definition of "nighthawking". A fortnight ago, he urged detectorists to seek some informed archaeological opinions on it and those who write on it. He asked his UK readers to print off a copy of the discussion of the matter and take it to their local FLO or detectorist-friendly neighbourhood archaeologist:
Ask for their comments and if they will stand by them in public.So in the last fortnight, how many attributed comments has he been able to gather? A hundred? Two dozen? Zero? Check his contribution on the topic today to the Stout Standards anti-archaeological blog to learn the answer. How many UK archaeologists have been willing to go on record as being in league with the likes of Mr Howland's naysaying, and who are they?
I’ll print attributable replies.
.jpg)
1 comment:
I feel Mr H has a comprehension problem. He seems to genuinely believe there are archaeologists who disagree with the Glasgow Fourth and Farmer Brown, when in fact there are few or none.
I hear Farmer Brown is releasing a second letter tomorrow. I wonder if archaeologists will agree with that too? (I suspect so).
Post a Comment