Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Simon Collcutt
Many commentators (including Sebastian Payne) seem to be suggesting that there will be no (future) need for "archaeologists and developers" to obtain a licence. It is very difficult to see how such deregulation could be prevented from becoming generalised - nobody would need a licence to disinter human remains. We have to ask ourselves whether we think this would be in the public interest ... I certainly do not.
I agree Simon. At least with the old system it was clear that the remains had to be excavated with due respect (shielding from public gaze, etc.), that they had to be analysed by a qualified osteologist and then either retained for future scientific research or reburied appropriately.
The current situation is that the recommendations are for human remains to be reburied almost immediately with no requirement for analysis - in fact it can be inferred that retention and analysis would be illegal. The worrying aspect from my point of view is that some are interpreting the situation as 'anybody can excavate human remains as long as they're not from an area that still looks like, or is used as, a cemetery'. It is also affecting the way that curators write their briefs: some do not mention human remains at all and others are omitting the requirements for post-excavation analysis. This means that human remains excavated under these conditions may never be analysed as there is no requirement for the developer to pay for it. This could lead to a serious loss of information, particularly if large cemeteries are involved.
The problem as I see it is that the advice and recommendations offered by all parties is unclear. People are interpreting them in a number of different ways, leading to confusion. If the Minstry of Justice, EH, the IFA, etc. could issue step-by-step instructions as to the current situation then I believe that there would be less confusion.
D
I dig dead people
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
P.S. on a technical point.
Peter Wardle suggested above that we consider "what are the defences against prosecution for example, how far are the offences de minimus or would a prosecution be in the public interest".
In my understanding, an offense under Section 25 of the 1857 Act (if offense there be) would involve strict personal liability of the particular archaeologist who 'removed the remains from their place of burial'; there is no defense, certainly not that you were instructed to act by employer, client or landowner - or, indeed, following advice from the IFA, EH, the MoJ or even a solicitor. I repeat, there is no defense should it be found by a court that an offense has been committed. The penalty is currently defined as follows: "on summary conviction [i.e. without a jury] before any two (magistrates), forfeit and pay for every such offence a sum not exceeding (level 1 on the standard scale)". I believe level 1 is currently £200, not a particularly daunting penalty in itself but remember the criminal record. Note the phrase "every such offence", which would imply (in contrast to the 'multiple' authority which was usually involved in the issue of a licence in the past) that a fine would be levied for every full or partial skeleton removed from its place of burial - a potentially costly cummulative fault on a cemetery site.
No doubt a prosecution would help to clarify the situation ... and I can think of at least one person who might have another person in mind as a suitable candidate for sacrificial lamb ...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Very public spirited of you... (apologies!)
So as I understand it... due to nobody having yet tested it.. then nobody can actually tell what the outcome is/may be..
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Quote:quote:Since the MoJ do not appear to have consulted widely with the archaeological profession to set alternative provisions in place before curtailing a licensing practice which has held good for decades, they leave us no option at present but to proceed without a license, especially since many Planning Permissions will involve requirements (via conditions and/or legal obligations) to retrieve human remains according to appropriate professional standards. I must say that I resent having had to put myself at personal risk of censure over this matter.
As an outsider and not knowing much of this process.
To break the law is a serious offence.
The fall out of an archaeologist digging up human remains without a license will be very damaging to your profession. (the stigma nighthawking leaves on mine is a very good example)
No matter what the law is... archaeologists should stick to the law and should not promote or practise anything else. If you believe you are "breaking the law" then stop.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I think thats the problem here... i am confused about when I would be... especially when a few weeks ago I was not
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
but surly if you need a licence and continue without the licence... you do know the difference???
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
but the problem is, they cannot/will not tell us if we need a licence or not, or in some circumstances or all?
A mess. Time for the IFA to stop sitting on its hands and issue some practical advice rather than write letters??
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by voice of reason A mess. Time for the IFA to stop sitting on its hands and issue some practical advice rather than write letters??
I don't think that the IFA is to blame here. How can they be expected to issue advice on the legality of an action when the government department responsible is itself unable to clarify the law?
The IFA Code of Conduct states:
1.14 An archaeologist may find himself/herself in an ethical dilemma where he/she is confronted by competing loyalties, responsibilities or duties. In such circumstances an archaeologist shall act in accordance with the Principles of the Code of conduct.
...but of course, and has been stated since Saturday, the IFA Code of Conduct does not apply to non-IFA members, (unless they are contractually obligated to adhere to its Principles).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Doubtless this has ramifications for the building trade, as if we refuse to excavate human remains then they either halt the job or (potentially) break the law themselves. This is something the big boys are unlikely to be happy about, and they have more clout than us. Does anyone out there know whether their industry bodies/institutions are aware of this problem? If not, perhaps they could be informed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
Kevein - you misunderstand my point - I would hope that the IFA would actually update us as members as to what we should be doing ie stop digging up human remains till resolved, or carry on - they palpably haven't done this.
