29th April 2011, 10:11 AM
P Prentice Wrote: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?
Since the report would be included as part of publication of a much wider chunk of landscape, it would get an up-to-date discussion/reinterpretation elsewhere in the monograph as part of that wider landscape - the excavator didn't know that the barrow was sitting right next to a possible cursus (now sadly pretty much entirely quarried with only old APs and a 1970s watching brief to go on) and over the road from a henge (now very definitely entirely quarried, but also excavated, archive sitting on shelf behind me, phew!) - the point is to present the surviving evidence for the barrow excavation, such as it is, in its extant form (to avoid any possible future confusions/misinterpretations of what I've done with it, plus of course using the original report illustrations saves money....), and then take it further as part of the wider landscape interpretation