Pitts, M. W., ed. (2010). Letters. British Archaeology 110. Vol 110, pp. 12-13.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Letters | |
|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
British Archaeology 110 | |
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
British Archaeology | |
Volume Volume number and part |
110 | |
Number of Pages The number of pages in the publication or report |
66 | |
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
12 - 13 | |
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions. | |
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | |
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
Includes: letter arguing that the Staffordshire hoard is being blown out of proportion given that it is without wider context (in particular criticising statements that the hoard is "more important than Sutton Hoo") (Nick Corcos, 12); letter criticising metal-detecting (Christopher Sparey-Green, 12); a letter noting that a stone fragment claimed to be bluestone from Silbury Hill is in fact not bluestone, and that claims of winged ants found at Silbury are dubious and can, in any case, not be used to pin-point the season of the monument's construction (Jim Leary, 13) | |
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2010 | |
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
|
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(biab_online)
|
|
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
30 Dec 2009 |
