No, he's right on the money. There are very noticeable differences in how archaeology was done between the early 1800s and the early 1900s. Early explorers like Ferlini made an absolute mess of sites in Egypt and Sudan, as did archaeologists like Amelineau. The work of later scholars like Petrie and Winlock is still dissatisfactory by modern standards, but it was a huge improvement.

The Turin collection is all well and good, but archaeology is not antiquarianism – collecting objects is not the end goal. The collection was acquired with a considerable amount of destruction and is no little source of frustration to Egyptologists today. Take the Turin king list, for example, which was found intact but thanks to Drovetti's carelessness is now a jumble of tattered fragments that Egyptologists have been trying to reconstruct for decades.

Jason Thompson's trilogy on the history of Egyptology is well worth a read, as I don't think most people realize how far Egyptology has come in a relatively short amount of time.