This is not the first archaeological report of interventions that is published piecemeal and/or not in the order that it was dug. However I am certainly no apologist for Tarmac or what they want to do to the Thornborough landscape. Having worked as a supervisor at Thornborough with Jan (on the pit alignments by the southern henge) I 'm very pro the preservation of the landscape and anti-quarrying.

However archaeological publications (interim or otherwise) are frequently published in the order that specialist (flint, ceramics, environmental) reports come in (many specialists subcontract to larger units and consultancies and have heavy workloads). In addition there are often delay caused by waits for results from sampling/dating (eg radio-carbon dating, optically stimulated luminesence dating etc) where there are a limited number of labs providing services on a global basis. The order of publication of specific aspects of sites often also depends on the complexity and difficulty of interpretation of sites i.e. pit alignments can be much more enigmatic and difficult to interpret both on the ground and in post-excavation study than even the most spectacular Iron Age burial enclosures.

Whilst I am sure that Tarmac are keen to promote their own agenda I have not yet seen any evidence that suggests that the on-line interim reports are in any way out of line with what I would expect from normal archaeological practice. Archaeological publication does not always proceed either quickly or in what might appear to be a logical sequence! Would that it were otherwise.