I've checked the literature and found out what really happened in the Goldhahn vs. Berntsson fight about barrow-building. Of course, whatever the result, it would have left the Lund Archaeological Review editors looking bad.
Aardvarchaeology
Martin Rundkvist's blog. Archaeology, skepticism, Sweden. And books and music and stuff.
Profile
Dr Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist, journal editor, public speaker, skeptic, atheist, lefty liberal, bookworm, and father of two. This is the world's #1 archaeology blog according to Technorati.
Recent Posts
- A Window into Winter
- Bones of Copernicus Get Positive ID
- Anthro Blog Carnival
- Commanding English
- A Blurred Pornographic Vision, Sir
- Email Ghosts
- Only Population Size Really Matters for the Environment
- One Laptop Per Child and One For You
- Non-Chicken Laid First Chicken Egg
- Wikipedia Academy, Lund
Recent Comments
- blf on Commanding English
- Martin R on A Window into Winter
- Lars L on A Window into Winter
- Nomen Nescio on Bones of Copernicus Get Positive ID
- Martin R on Bones of Copernicus Get Positive ID
- Mikael HafO on Bones of Copernicus Get Positive ID
- Rin on Bones of Copernicus Get Positive ID
- chancelikely on Commanding English
- Blake Stacey on Commanding English
- Joshua Zelinsky on Commanding English
Search this blog
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
Good Blog Carnivals
Four Stone Hearth
« Antiquity Seeks Contributions for Web Site | Main | Orbicular Diorite »
Goldhahn vs. Berntsson Fight Resolved
Category: Archaeology • Denmark • Sweden
Posted on: June 26, 2007 3:48 AM, by Martin R
Comments
Oy vey! Actually it's kind of sad that (supposedly) intelligent grown-ups carry on like this. How about a phone call or an e-mail? However, LAR has a big part in this and I hope they strive to improve their track record henceforth.
Posted by: Tobias | June 26, 2007 1:57 PM
Good work Martin! I think this was important to clear up for all concerned.
You also raised important points about proper procedure for journals publishing debates. Personally, I would welcome more debates like the ones in Current Anthropology, where a central text is discussed by several researchers, ending with an answer by the main author(s). Unfortunately, that takes a lot of time, energy and logistical luck on behalf of the editors, most of which are barely paid for the work they do normally.
It is a shame that the publication of results and debates, which should be the main goal of all research, is often treated as a past-time hobby by people in control of the funding.
Posted by: Asa L | June 27, 2007 3:22 AM
I have no doubt that LAR's main problem is one of funding. Even the venerable Lundensian professor Berta Stjernquist says so in a recent paper:
"Meddelanden sadly no longer survives. It was replaced by Lund Archaeological Review which has no grants and not much of a future. Its current editor is Anders Ödman. He tells me that the Department of Archaeology pays for the printing but that the editor has to work very much with it. It is impossible to avoid delays in the publication."
Fornvännen, on the other hand, is published by the affluent Academy of Letters, who pay the people involved quite adequately, I'm happy to say.
Posted by: Martin R | June 27, 2007 3:31 AM
The problem with funding of journals is ever increasing, and pehaps exacerbated by the fact that times have changed quite significantly for people involved in research. I have met the attitude of many older colleagues that anyone should be able to write an article on their spare time, and also act as editor in the evenings - or some such. Ignoring the fact that most of them had wives acting as caretakers and housmaids in their time, and full employment that involved very little administration compared to the situation today.
For most of us planning a future in our discipline, it is not enough to publish - we have to publish right! In accredited peer-reviewed journals. Those are really the only ones that will be considered when applying for positions. To think that there can be journals organized solely by enthusiasts, with uncertain publication dates, is simply too 20th century...
Posted by: Asa L | June 27, 2007 4:20 AM
Journal funding is only a problem in the small and generally underfunded world of the humanities. The sad reality is that if you want to be involved in archaeology, and not work in contract archaeology sectioning postholes, then you will most likely need a day job.
Posted by: Martin R | June 27, 2007 4:27 AM