5th June 2008, 02:58 PM
Mr Din I dont want to change it, I want to have it fully supported that there is an owner of the archaeology and that it is foremost the landowner and any other that has rights to the land. There should be a button on any official out there that says archaeology belongs to the landowner first.
Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology Code 25 -An archaeologist 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.
This should be first line of anybodies contract if not a contract of approval from the owner.(and if a digger wants to pretend to be an archaeologist they should also establish exactly who owns what they are digging up)
My longstanding concerns are based on the pipe line situation where there are compulsory purchase threats to ownership and in which a developer appoints the archaeologist rather than the landowner and I also don?t like the heritage protection bills intimation that EH can access land and remove objects against the landowners wish. I think that both these examples can bring archaeologists into disrepute with the land/archaeology owners.
Why haven?t the ifa issued a copy? (do they get a cut from the thirty quid?) I ask because I am not going to spend 30 quid to find out whats not in or out. Unless I am paid to do so.
Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology Code 25 -An archaeologist 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.
This should be first line of anybodies contract if not a contract of approval from the owner.(and if a digger wants to pretend to be an archaeologist they should also establish exactly who owns what they are digging up)
My longstanding concerns are based on the pipe line situation where there are compulsory purchase threats to ownership and in which a developer appoints the archaeologist rather than the landowner and I also don?t like the heritage protection bills intimation that EH can access land and remove objects against the landowners wish. I think that both these examples can bring archaeologists into disrepute with the land/archaeology owners.
Why haven?t the ifa issued a copy? (do they get a cut from the thirty quid?) I ask because I am not going to spend 30 quid to find out whats not in or out. Unless I am paid to do so.