dinosaur: gone away or just(ly) extinct

[Tool]

Is it just me, or is this Clause 25 thingy totally irrelevant when it comes to commercial archaeology? The fact that the client is paying you to dig on their land rather implies that they give you consent to dig on their land. If they haven't got the appropriate rights to operate on that land, well, rather more important laws and regulations come in to play...

[kevin wooldridge]

Go on I will ask....What is a Clause 25 thingy.....and what legislation causes it to arise?

[Marc Berger]

Allegations and complaints are judged against the Code of conduct and the other by-laws. The complainant needs to identify the relevant principle(s) and rule(s) that have allegedly been breached. For example ‘Code of conduct Principle 1 Rule 1.3 A member shall not offer advice, make a public statement, or give legal testimony involving archaeological matters, without being as thoroughly informed on the matters concerned as might reasonably be expected’, or another example ‘clause 25 of the Code of approved practices for the regulation of contractual arrangements in archaeology – a member embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping’.

the ifa went around a few years ago getting rid of the mention of fieldwork in their name but don't seem to got rid of it from this example. Being self employed I am aware who the landowners are (although not sure when a mortgage is involved) but I wasn't when I worked for companies on government funded works, even less so when you are subcontracted through construction and environment consultancies. Is there somebody at the highways agency that is considered to be the " landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping". . Some of these road schemes seem to be looked after by local authorities, is there somebody in the local authority who owns the land and ineffect the archaeology, do any belong to the crown?

If your not a member its not a problem, but how far do members have to go to get (and presumably in writing) a "secure permission" and not fall foul of the dreaded ifa inquisition.

[P Prentice]

it dosent really matter as long as you got somebody credible to sign saying they have the authority to sign - simples

[beamo]

Marc - the key part of clause 25 is the 'as appropriate' bit.

For motorways and trunk roads the landowner (in England) is the Highways Agency, in Wales it would be Welsh Government etc. For other roads the highway authority (i.e. landowner) is usually the county council.

For archaeological work on Highways Agency or county highways land, an instuction from the HA or CC would be deemed to include landowner agreement to enter and carry out the works as commissioned. If the work is for a new road and the land has not yet been purchased by the HA or CC (through CPO or other), then the HA/CC will have negotiated access to undertake investigatory works necessary to reach the required level of design etc. If those works include archaeological investigations than access for such will have been included in the licence for access agreed with the landowner and there is no need for the archaeologists to agree a separate permission.


For pipelines, cables etc that are constructed under permitted development rights the situation is slightly different as the ownership of the land (and the finds in England and Wales) will not change - the developer usually only has the right to build and maintain but not to take ownership of the land. However the agreement to enter the land for the purposes of construction will usually include clauses that deal with the right to undertake surveys and investigations as necessary, including archaeological works. Hence again there would be no need for the archaeologists to agree a separate permission.


Beamo

[Marc Berger]

Thanks Beamo. Just so that you understand my angle on cpo I believe that the archaeologist should be appointed by the landowner in order to protect the landowners archaeology and to allow the landowner to profit from their loss due to enforced development. And I understand the difference with the utilities and roads. I believe that the archaeologists via clause 25 should inform the landowners who they are specifically undertaking the work for, how much they are being paid for the work on their land and what the intention of that work is. I think that they should give the landowners the right to appoint their own archaeologist...

Yes I understand that the common practise is that archaeologists normally gain access to land via wayleave agreements although I am not sure that it specifically says that archaeology may be removed from the property or even specifically that archaeologists will be given access. I once a few years ago tried to get the ear of the nfu but failed but which is why clause 25 "as appropriate" catches my eye. The system that we have grow out of the archaeologists basically being public servants with archaeology a public service. I see commercial archaeology as adversarial in which the field archaeologists is involved to make profit from making profit from archaeology for the landowner. Field archaeology through eu treaty is supposed to be funded by polluter pays principles which I think includes the authorising authority. When you say

For motorways and trunk roads the landowner (in England) is the Highways Agency

is there a deed or a piece of paper specifying the specific entity that might be considered the owner of the land. I would of course still argue that clause 25 seems to warn the archaeologist that there may be many people who have rights to the land and that the archaeologist should get a grip on them all but I have never seen much consideration given.

In many way the evolved attitude is very colonial and I sometimes wish that "we" had an indigenous people to kick up a fuss.

[Sith]

..(the flint scatter was half-dug by LUAU in 1995 anyway, so hardly news - by the way, anyone know where the archive is so we can publish it?)..

<COUGH!> I was working in a much less productive trench when the flint scatter was found. As for the archive, I've no clue but my best guess is that it's under somebody's desk in Lancaster.

[Dinosaur]

<COUGH!> I was working in a much less productive trench when the flint scatter was found. As for the archive, I've no clue but my best guess is that it's under somebody's desk in Lancaster.

I did actually see the stuff (well, the boxes, anyway) in 1995 where it was temporarily stored under the stairs in a house in Knaresborough. Someone says in his PhD thesis that he looked at it in a museum (probably best not to say which on here), which is good corroboration that it actually was archived, but they seem to have lost track of it, possibly as a result of it being leant to someone else many moons ago...then again most of the old archives from that project (from various contractors) seem to have been 'mislaid' by the receiving institutions... I was however quite amused to discover that one or two of the 'lost' and 'unlocateable' items were hidden in plain sight in museum display cases

[Jack]

If a museum 'loses' or destroys an archive shouldn't they pay the owner for the loss?

[Sith]

I did actually see the stuff (well, the boxes, anyway) in 1995 where it was temporarily stored under the stairs in a house in Knaresborough.

Now I am worried. Was this the same house where the landlord's kindly provided readng matter consisted largely of 1970s paperback porn, and one of the diggers lived in a large cupboard?