3rd May 2011, 08:57 AM
Dinosaur Wrote: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
interesting and i see your point - but has your client agreed to fund this extraneous work that they were presumably not liable for, or is px funding coming from elsewhere? I am interested because the level of work you seem to be alluding to presumably requires px assessment and therefore an updated resarch design?