30th May 2014, 08:15 PM
Came across this http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v5/n3/f...9_270.html and there are a few eias written for Stratford which dice with heritage receptors and sheackspear.
yes unhaired sheakspere had a weird wayward way to spell and just make up words. Luckily we have some of his plays as examples of what they were up to circa Jacobean . Although I would be amongst the first pedants to applaud the puking of a new lexicon I have a some discontent about the madcap ability of anybody to contain archaeology (woe not a shaky word) within a receptor. This is a gross falsehood, its flawed academe. The question before us is how can you contain archaeology within a receptor. Take the example of a scheduled monumental moated site. Take it to the politicians because that is all that circumstantial blanket belongs to. Where you put the evaluation trench is across that fools boundary, and even thrice more distant beware that what you touch does not turn back to face that which is undressed, its laughable.
yes unhaired sheakspere had a weird wayward way to spell and just make up words. Luckily we have some of his plays as examples of what they were up to circa Jacobean . Although I would be amongst the first pedants to applaud the puking of a new lexicon I have a some discontent about the madcap ability of anybody to contain archaeology (woe not a shaky word) within a receptor. This is a gross falsehood, its flawed academe. The question before us is how can you contain archaeology within a receptor. Take the example of a scheduled monumental moated site. Take it to the politicians because that is all that circumstantial blanket belongs to. Where you put the evaluation trench is across that fools boundary, and even thrice more distant beware that what you touch does not turn back to face that which is undressed, its laughable.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist