10th November 2011, 03:59 PM
Called!
I can?t speak for the publication, but do publish there regularly (and even had the cover story in the edition where this was first published). Seeing as you?ve asked so nicely, I can probably shed some light on this forum thread.
The link you have here, and the other ?editorial? mentioned, comes from a section of the magazine called ?Last word? published over a year ago. This is the Editor-in-Chiefs place to air his views on whatever the hell he likes. It is an opinion piece, like opinion pieces written by columnists in every national newspaper. What can you do; he owns the shop, and has therefore earned the right to have the last word.
The editorial stance of the magazine is often at odds with the views expressed in this section ? such as the ?Archaeology after the Cuts? edition that mounted a strong defence for commercial archaeology in the face of the axe-mans blade. The former editor and the current editor have worked like Trojans to build bridges with professional archaeologists. Did I say build bridges? I meant bought lots of pints.
Now to the argument itself: Andrew Selkirk has been saying this for a long time now ? and published a short pamphlet on this in 1997 called ?Who Owns The Past: A Grass Roots Critique of Heritage Policy? (Adam Smith Institute) in which he argues persuasively to ditch the ?artificial? heritage market created through planning policy guidance because this ultimately distanced archaeology from it?s natural constituency (the independent enthusiastic amateur tradition). He argued instead for free market where amateurs undertook rescue archaeology as part of a ?leisure economy.? The more people get to do archaeology, the more people will like archaeology, the better for archaeologists and archaeology in general. He continued in this line further at the recent Mortimer debate (perhaps the other 'editorial' mentioned on this thread) where he argued that Melton's argument (that archaeology inhibits development) could be met half way if amateur societies were allowed to take on small projects at their leisure for little or no cost to the developer.
One man?s utopia can be another man?s dystopia? or is it? Selkirk?s rightwing, libertarian vision might not be a million miles from the ?Editorial Stance? of Bajrfed (if you are in the habit of tarring the entire production with an opinion piece written by the proprietor).
Try this one, shooting in from the left:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/connolly327/
The more people get to do archaeology, the more people will like archaeology, the better for archaeologists and archaeology in general. :face-stir:
You know what I think: Amateurs Shamateurs. Slam the doors and lets get chartered.
PS. Oxbeast. Invisible Man. Come on now. That whole Blur/Oasis thing is so 90s!
I can?t speak for the publication, but do publish there regularly (and even had the cover story in the edition where this was first published). Seeing as you?ve asked so nicely, I can probably shed some light on this forum thread.
The link you have here, and the other ?editorial? mentioned, comes from a section of the magazine called ?Last word? published over a year ago. This is the Editor-in-Chiefs place to air his views on whatever the hell he likes. It is an opinion piece, like opinion pieces written by columnists in every national newspaper. What can you do; he owns the shop, and has therefore earned the right to have the last word.
The editorial stance of the magazine is often at odds with the views expressed in this section ? such as the ?Archaeology after the Cuts? edition that mounted a strong defence for commercial archaeology in the face of the axe-mans blade. The former editor and the current editor have worked like Trojans to build bridges with professional archaeologists. Did I say build bridges? I meant bought lots of pints.
Now to the argument itself: Andrew Selkirk has been saying this for a long time now ? and published a short pamphlet on this in 1997 called ?Who Owns The Past: A Grass Roots Critique of Heritage Policy? (Adam Smith Institute) in which he argues persuasively to ditch the ?artificial? heritage market created through planning policy guidance because this ultimately distanced archaeology from it?s natural constituency (the independent enthusiastic amateur tradition). He argued instead for free market where amateurs undertook rescue archaeology as part of a ?leisure economy.? The more people get to do archaeology, the more people will like archaeology, the better for archaeologists and archaeology in general. He continued in this line further at the recent Mortimer debate (perhaps the other 'editorial' mentioned on this thread) where he argued that Melton's argument (that archaeology inhibits development) could be met half way if amateur societies were allowed to take on small projects at their leisure for little or no cost to the developer.
One man?s utopia can be another man?s dystopia? or is it? Selkirk?s rightwing, libertarian vision might not be a million miles from the ?Editorial Stance? of Bajrfed (if you are in the habit of tarring the entire production with an opinion piece written by the proprietor).
Try this one, shooting in from the left:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/connolly327/
The more people get to do archaeology, the more people will like archaeology, the better for archaeologists and archaeology in general. :face-stir:
You know what I think: Amateurs Shamateurs. Slam the doors and lets get chartered.
PS. Oxbeast. Invisible Man. Come on now. That whole Blur/Oasis thing is so 90s!