Wiltshire Heritage Museum has no more room for storage.

[Unitof1]

I like to say the same but take about fifty different threads, a couple of bans, spread over two years and I still dont feel that I have nailed it like you have Dino. Its that dirty piece of paper whot you wrote on at the time that is everything-or graphic sheet -or back of an envalope-that which is produced by the archaeologist which is everything more important than these second hand archive dumps.

[Martin Locock]

Many museums require that depositors sort through the material prior to deposition so that the unimportant stuff is removed (museums have historically been reluctant to dispose of material once it is in their stores, although that has changed a bit recently). To pick up on Dino's and Unit's points, the archive here is finds and records, so even if no finds were kept there's still the records to go somewhere, and in fact managing the digital archives created by current excavations is a lot more labour intensive (and expensive) than keeping boxes of pottery on a shelf.

It would be good if the IfA, say, were to initiate a discussion about what the ethical approach should be for archaeologists left, through no fault of their own, with an undepositable archive. In Wales, the National Museum has accepted the role of being a 'museum of last resort' to take material that cannot be placed with a LA museum.

[Unitof1]

did they say why they-national museum -wanted to be the museum of last resort? (what was their ethics). As for the ifa ethics, it purely comes down: to is the product of archaeology something that has to be owned by everybody-the public, what ever. I would say that it does not, archaeology belongs to the landowner and any copyrights derived from there.

[Martin Locock]

I think the National Museum (and any museum) would consider being a place of deposit of last resort as being a duty rather than a prviligee. In any case, therir grounds for doing so comes from their charter:

"its objects (‘the Objects’ which are to be
the advancement of the education of the public:
(i) primarily, by the comprehensive representation of science, art, industry,
history and culture of, or relevant to, Wales, and
(ii) generally, by the collection, recording, preservation, elucidation and
presentation of objects and things and associated knowledge, whether
connected or not with Wales, which are calculated to further the
enhancement of understanding and the promotion of research"



On the question of whether there is any rights for public access to the results of archaeological work on private land, the answer is no, unless:
1 the results are of national importance and hence coming under the remit of Scheduled Ancient Monuments,
or
2 the landowner chooses to seek planning permission for a development which has an effect on the heritage (the nation's heritage) in which case the mitigation of the effects of the development involves making the results available to the public and the records constituting the preservation by record available in the long term through deposition in an accessible archive (such a requirement usually being written in the brief for a project).

Otherwise there is no requirement on making the records or results of archaeological work public, apart from the moral duty of every archaeologist worthy of the name.

[Unitof1]

worthy possibly but a fiddler pays for the tune. I notice that the charter extract has no substinance, is there a caveat somewhere (apart from the implicitness of nationalisum) which say that all this moral high ground is dependant on an equal access, with the rearing of babies in incubators, to the trough of tax farming? or in lay mans terms- what? they have a right to dosh for ever from anybody they so care to name?

Let they who are worthy cast the first stone. This isnt a joke but should I deposit all my household rubbish with them as an archaeological archive?

2 the landowner chooses to seek planning permission for a development which has an effect on the heritage (the nation's heritage) in which case the mitigation of the effects of the development involves making the results available to the public and the records constituting the preservation by record available in the long term through deposition in an accessible archive (such a requirement usually being written in the brief for a project).

will have to work on this one, could you point me in the direction of statute in law, principle in constutution, a grandmother who used to swear that this was true, I would settle for a law of termodynaics.

[Martin Locock]

They have been given a royal charter to do things, funded by the taxpayer. They have a collection policy which sets out which material they will and won't accept.


PPG 16 s.25 and 26 set out the principles under the planning legislation (derived from material considerations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1949 and explicitly including archaeology from the General Development Order 1988) to local authorities to require excavation, recording and publication (PPG16 has been superseded by NPPG5 but the PPG statement is a clearer expression of the point). s 25 says "Such excavation and recording should be carried out before development commences, working to a project brief prepared by the planning authority". Thus the PA has the power to define in its brief what it considers to be appropriate arrangements for publication and archive, which the developer must accept in return fro consent for the development. I recall that you have in the past argued that it is entirely up to you as an archaeological contractor for a developer to decide what you think is an appropriate way to report on or archive your work; if it was done as part of planning, under their brief, then it is not.

[Unitof1]

They have been given a royal charter to do things, funded by the taxpayer. They have a collection policy which sets out which material they will and won't accept.

I am interested in what they wont accept. Sorry the royal charter was funded by the tax payer why is that relevant? or rather what royal chater, think that it has been suggested that they Are:

a place of deposit of last resort as being a duty rather than a prviligee

and then theres this

working to a project brief prepared by the planning authority

which does not use the word evaluation, just some mystical prepareation by a planning authority (notice no mention of a curator)

just out of interest to the real world: could the museums sell any of their collections?

[Unitof1]

... because heres my big fuckwit idea for you left wing tosser is that museums should be second hand shops-run by the tax collector.. or not (ps just used the tosser bit to make me feel big)

and when they have sold/dumped 95% of their so called collections and that includes all the art but most inportantly 95% of their archaeology archieves. so as to concentrate their efforts....thing is could they spot a crap archaeological archive if they tried?

they will feel much better for it,

and feeling good is what its all about

[Martin Locock]

If you are interested in what they will and won't accept you can read their collection policy. It's on their website.

There is a section in PPG16 on evaluation, since you've asked. I quoted the excavation section because it was the clearest statement of the principle which you seemed to doubt had ever been articlulated.

Not that my politics matters, but when the National Museum was founded in 1909 there was a general consensus between conservatives, liberals and socialists that a civilised society would seek to collect, research and display its heritage for the good of its citizens. You may not agree but this view is hardly am extreme one. But I see that it was a mistake to answer your questions as if they were sincere attempts to explore issues.

[Unitof1]

many a letter is signed sincerely, it would appear to be based on the form of address. but that is old schoo,l a bit like ppg16. It has been my habit to qulify most staements about evaluations with the ppg16 prefix of inexpensive. To my mind inexpensive is a sacrosant talis that we are based in an economy and that we inevitably sink or swim by it-currently I am in the subsurface position. Outside of the private sector, politics does matter but not in?, I would suggest particularly in archaeology and in the public sector. We are at every turn exploited by historians who really are lawers looking to over turn previously accepted jugdements.

When the National museum was founded in 1909 pensions had just been invented for the common 70 year old and mostly taken up by women-national insurance soon to follow. Interestingly womens abilituy to vote was yet to come. I am not sure that the collective polict of that day could related to our current circumstance. For a instance they did not have the considered codes of the ifa to work by. I would hate to asses the ego of the 1909 museum curum. The extremity of your view is that probably you and I could in no way relate to that time-its bad enough relating to the times of ppg16 (not in front of the chidren).

Thank you for attemps to explore issues but it is a new tack of yours. Excuse me if I attempt to press buttons to find out what you are about. So far you seem to want to be a wiki app.

You think museums should be prepared to take anything that I leave at their doors?