25th February 2006, 09:45 PM
Maybe I am being as biased as I'm assuming the academic world is.[:I]
I interpreted the article as an initial critique of commercial techniques that has subsequently been proven erroneous, and not a problem of dissemination which I think both sides of the archaeological world probably agree on.
I interpreted the article as an initial critique of commercial techniques that has subsequently been proven erroneous, and not a problem of dissemination which I think both sides of the archaeological world probably agree on.