Well here you are, I'm back already! Thanks for pointing me to the "errors" you saw in the transcription. Two of these are a misreading of the way I annotated the second version, where I put punctuation marks omitted from the first version in square brackets. You were right about one mistake, however, which was corrected a while back (pity the poor person at the CBA who had to get those nerdy red bits right). Still, one corrected miscolouring is not really the same as "several minor and perhaps a couple of major errors".
And while you might not like the piece in British Archaeology, that does not make it (necessarily) "hurriedly-concocted": it wasn't. It was a news piece in a newsstand magazine; the more measured article on the website is written in a different style, and of course is more informative, but it took no longer to write. You're taking on a professional writer and editor here, remember :-)
|