Sometimes work isn't outdated

[oursin]

A bit miffed to have had something come back to me with editorial comments querying why I have not cited more recent historiography of subject?

That would be, pretty much, because all the standard historiography of the subject is there, I can't actually help it that a pioneering work of primary research was published over 40 years ago* and anything replacing it would be either plagiarising it or reinventing the wheel.

Okay, there are debates to be had and questions to be asked (and one of the authors of A Classic-ish Work has been walking back on Big Theory Therein, Hah), and I will concede that there is one recent work which I probably should put in there even if I haven't had a chance to have sight of it (am profoundly irked that no-one has asked me to review it what is this thing that this thing is, am I not a Nexpert in this rather niche field WOT? Is expensive academic press book not among volumes marked down during their latest sale). I do have a fair amount of confidence in the author's capacities and have read articles by them.

But apart from that, honestly, there is only so much to be discovered about this subject, and it was all thoroughly covered in the standard works. That more recent overview textbook commenter suggested doubtless cites to them rather than bringing up anything new.

In my archivist days had a fair amount of hopefuls wanting to research this and you know, was given to telling them that they were not going to uncover Exciting New Things. (While pushing them towards the area where there was in fact Lots To Uncover, and still is, in in related area.)

*In fact there is classic work in general field published in 1930s which remains standard because, like, no-one is going to get that nerdy again.