23rd June 2008, 03:26 PM
I not either sure what I mean by rights to the archaeology. Possibly its more motivation or exploitation. What I am trying to imagine is why should a landowner give a monkeys about the archaeology on their land. Currently the interests I think are vested. The archaeologists get access, the developer pays, the developer may have appointed a consultant, the curators, through the vagaries of the eias and dti, curate. They all have their ways of managing the project. One developer (who can be a confusion of engineering contractor and gas transporter), one consultant, one curator and one archaeologist and bloody miles of ground.
Nice lamdowner if they do anything at all they donate the finds with the archive for the good of the nation. Its all tied up in the wayleaves, I believe the standard contract mentions minerals.
What if I was the nice landowner. Yes your going to put a pipeline through my , thats all right but I have been protecting the archaeology in situ. What are you going to pay me for it? Where in the agreement does it say x amount for the destruction of your archaeology?
Nice lamdowner if they do anything at all they donate the finds with the archive for the good of the nation. Its all tied up in the wayleaves, I believe the standard contract mentions minerals.
What if I was the nice landowner. Yes your going to put a pipeline through my , thats all right but I have been protecting the archaeology in situ. What are you going to pay me for it? Where in the agreement does it say x amount for the destruction of your archaeology?