.
Don't be like a recent Florida know-it-all, judge the "Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter" for yourselves. But if you do, please (unlike the majority of its critics) take a few moments to actually read the whole text, then take a deep breath and think about it. Think not so much about the numbers themselves, but ask yourself and answer two simple questions:
If you think Britain's "metal detecting problem" has been solved and turned to archaeological benefit, please follow the link here.
1) If HA is right, what does this mean?The second is the crucial one. Just what is it that is being aimed for? Proper mitigation which resolves the problem of the erosion of the archaeological record through collecting and the artefact trade, or a 'better than nothing' stopgap which does not?
2) If HA have the numbers wrong, by how much would they have to be out to make the situation tolerable? 10%, 25%, 50%?
If you think Britain's "metal detecting problem" has been solved and turned to archaeological benefit, please follow the link here.
1 comment:
Your a fucking knob!
Post a Comment