9th November 2011, 01:50 PM
now that's cleared up i might as well add the recent Current Archaeology editorial to the debate. the editor in chief, a long time champion of the amateur and reactionary new archaeology philistine, sports his assertion that 'house sized' developments with an archaeological condition should be the preserve of amatuer groups and not professionals!
before you are tempted to dismiss this as the ravings of demented has-been, i will caution that this man has the ear of, and possibly reflects the views of, a great number of archaeologiphites. and yes the article shows that he has an entirely inadequate understanding of the development control system and poor grasp of invesigatory journalism
he may well be intentionally stirring the debate, and he seems to have a lot in common with the councillor (bunny hugger) melton, but this is a serious attack which might just galvanise our sorry profession into considering the benefits of chartered status and the RO only system
before you are tempted to dismiss this as the ravings of demented has-been, i will caution that this man has the ear of, and possibly reflects the views of, a great number of archaeologiphites. and yes the article shows that he has an entirely inadequate understanding of the development control system and poor grasp of invesigatory journalism
he may well be intentionally stirring the debate, and he seems to have a lot in common with the councillor (bunny hugger) melton, but this is a serious attack which might just galvanise our sorry profession into considering the benefits of chartered status and the RO only system
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers