Is it just me, is it the British English used — or is that article particularly abstruse?
It is a touch awkward. Interesting though. I wonder why the one man was just crammed to the back.
Besides typical British English terminology, such as “chemists,” the article has terms used in archeological digs and also building/church architecture terminology, e.g. “piscina” that are not current knowledge. Those combined with British English, does make it a bit abstruse.
For example, none of the young people at my church know that the area just before the sanctuary is “the narthex” or that the “cross” area to either side of the pulpit is the “transept.”
Its in a UK publication, ergo it uses UK English.
The article seems pretty clear to me.