6th May 2006, 12:34 PM
Mattockhead,
I am particularly concerned that you think the moderators on BAJR operate a closed shop. As I understand it you observed these action ? you were not actually working on the site.
I would address some of the points you raise as follows (without knowing the detail of this case:
1. Welfare facilities.
Males and Females sharing toilet facilities. It is perfectly acceptable for toilets to be shared between contractors and archaeologists. It would be stupid not to. It is also acceptable for there not to be separate facilities for females provided that:
each convenience is in a separate room in which the door can be secured on the inside. SCAUM manual page 5.2
You said that ?Ladies WERE expected to use the same facility as male colleagues and contractors!!! ARE we not worth more than this????
You may not like sharing toilets etc with ?ladies? or building contractors but it is the norm. I do not understand why you think that archaeologist deserve better than this.
2. Home Office Licence.
I think all the laws/regulations relating to burials have to be seen in context especially as they are under review. As I have already said there is an absurdity in the notion that all burials must be excavated away from the public view given the frequency in which this operation is filmed and broadcast or photographed and published in newspapers. Similarly para 59 of the CofE/EH guidelines states that: ?Many people are interested in seeing the archaeological remains excavated and this should not be discouraged. ?.cemetery excavations should be screened if they would be visible to the casual passers by.
The common/standard Home office Licence condition is
?the ground from which the remains are interred shall be screened from the public gaze while the work of removal is taking place.?
I have yet to see a condition that requires the exhumation to take place in complete privacy. There appears to be a wall blocking the view to a degree this may or may not have been adequate.
The St Pancras example you quote is not a good one ? there was widespread criticism of what went on this site.
The Law concerning burials is far from black and white. It is very complex and arcane. I am assuming that the burials are in fact Christian and from a pre 1850 cemetery ie a Churchyard. In such circumstances the home office licence is only part of the requirements.
In the last two years there have been some quite major differences of opinion about what is and is not acceptable between the various parties. In the case of the conditions associated with home office licences they issue a generic catch all licence and the conditions may not apply in every case. The Home office regulation cover the dis-interment of all human remains and in many respects are designed for very recent burials rather than archaeological burials. This distinction is now being made clearer.
In terms of your comment:
?All in all, it doesn't give much hope to those wishing to reform the profession by whistle blowing to the IFA/BAJR,as NOTHING WILL BE DOWN (closed shop?.
Things can only be done if there a been a clear breach of a regulation and there is evidence that breach occurred. As things stand in my view the matter has been thoroughly investigated and the results of that investigation made public. I would suggest that this is real progress on the situation just 12 months ago.
Peter Wardle
I am particularly concerned that you think the moderators on BAJR operate a closed shop. As I understand it you observed these action ? you were not actually working on the site.
I would address some of the points you raise as follows (without knowing the detail of this case:
1. Welfare facilities.
Males and Females sharing toilet facilities. It is perfectly acceptable for toilets to be shared between contractors and archaeologists. It would be stupid not to. It is also acceptable for there not to be separate facilities for females provided that:
each convenience is in a separate room in which the door can be secured on the inside. SCAUM manual page 5.2
You said that ?Ladies WERE expected to use the same facility as male colleagues and contractors!!! ARE we not worth more than this????
You may not like sharing toilets etc with ?ladies? or building contractors but it is the norm. I do not understand why you think that archaeologist deserve better than this.
2. Home Office Licence.
I think all the laws/regulations relating to burials have to be seen in context especially as they are under review. As I have already said there is an absurdity in the notion that all burials must be excavated away from the public view given the frequency in which this operation is filmed and broadcast or photographed and published in newspapers. Similarly para 59 of the CofE/EH guidelines states that: ?Many people are interested in seeing the archaeological remains excavated and this should not be discouraged. ?.cemetery excavations should be screened if they would be visible to the casual passers by.
The common/standard Home office Licence condition is
?the ground from which the remains are interred shall be screened from the public gaze while the work of removal is taking place.?
I have yet to see a condition that requires the exhumation to take place in complete privacy. There appears to be a wall blocking the view to a degree this may or may not have been adequate.
The St Pancras example you quote is not a good one ? there was widespread criticism of what went on this site.
The Law concerning burials is far from black and white. It is very complex and arcane. I am assuming that the burials are in fact Christian and from a pre 1850 cemetery ie a Churchyard. In such circumstances the home office licence is only part of the requirements.
In the last two years there have been some quite major differences of opinion about what is and is not acceptable between the various parties. In the case of the conditions associated with home office licences they issue a generic catch all licence and the conditions may not apply in every case. The Home office regulation cover the dis-interment of all human remains and in many respects are designed for very recent burials rather than archaeological burials. This distinction is now being made clearer.
In terms of your comment:
?All in all, it doesn't give much hope to those wishing to reform the profession by whistle blowing to the IFA/BAJR,as NOTHING WILL BE DOWN (closed shop?.
Things can only be done if there a been a clear breach of a regulation and there is evidence that breach occurred. As things stand in my view the matter has been thoroughly investigated and the results of that investigation made public. I would suggest that this is real progress on the situation just 12 months ago.
Peter Wardle