26th April 2011, 10:28 AM
Dinosaur Wrote:Seeing a site through the eyes of the person who actually dug it always has value - can think of any number of sites where what was originally written has been trashed by more 'up-to-date-thinking' but then it's turned out the original excavator was spot-on...plus of course it's just plain rude and disrespectful although those seem to be gradually disappearing as considerations with the youth of today.... :0
On the copyright, good news! If the site was funded by the DoE and dug under the auspices of the local County Council (both of whom were/are unlikely to object to [free] publication of 'their' work) then sounds like I'm in the clear
assuming your barrow site report is at least 40 years old and the site not so far flung as to be removed from any subsequent research framework or regional or local synthesis, I cant believe that the intervening decades of research will not need to be taken into consideration when considering the said site, even if it is ‘spot on’. Verbatim reproduction of the site narrative without regard to current theoretical debate, i would contend, does little service to the original excavator or your current report, even if it is ‘spot on’. Surely what is needed is a properly referenced synopsis of the excavation with appropriately modified and referenced illustrations where necessary, along with directions to the original site archive? How would this be rude?