I think I'd tend to concur with James Gerrard's view on it (tho' lack of theory worries me less!) — in particular, his note in review that >
-
-
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @DrSueOosthuizen
> coverage of London is poor would be my view of the Lincoln evidence: an unsatisfactory, perfunctory treatment (e.g. St Paul in the Bail >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @DrSueOosthuizen
> dated to 'probably 7thC' following demonstrably unsupportable interpretation of Sawyer! My uncharitable view would be that whilst some >
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @DrSueOosthuizen
> works cited, incl several that show Sawyer wrong, they've not been fully read...) Perhaps would have worked better as study of Leicester?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen @DrSueOosthuizen
Rereading it just now, I'd love to say I've altered my view, but can't I'm afraid: v unsatisfactory both re: prior research & the evidence >
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
>, not properly engaging w/ either. Some interesting general ideas & points re: towns, but v v wary given treatment of L.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.