|
Now that's an argument I can appreciate. It's true that the scope was grand and the points made were often done so with insufficient documentation. I frequently found myself thinking that footnotes were too sparse and wishing for more depth, but given the nature of the work I accepted that certain trade-offs that had to be made. As an introduction to the prehistory of homo sapiens it was excellent, however, although as you mentioned in an earlier post, it was not as strong on it's presentation of known history.
|