18th August 2014, 06:42 PM
this seems to be the last attempt at this subject.
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...ght=burial
Bombbert what connection are you looking for between ethics and the law. I don't think that the law mentions archaeology. The law would appear to be the Burial Act from last century which is kinda concerned mostly about burying people in cemeteries and then not going around and digging them up without asking. This Act then seems to have been regulated into a licence which people worry about if they come across a burial outside of a cemetery: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/bur...ns-faq.pdf
I am not sure where the two year thing came from, its a kinda magic that departments can do and get away with until you can have a court case where the judges will say that the regs set a precedent. you might like to plead a human right to dig up and keep bones. Well I think that what is going on.
Obviously we are not talking about recent murder victims but if that was the case I don't know that there is any specific crime if an archaeologist did not report it. Possibly if you touch it you might be interfering with a crime scene but then how were you to know it was a crime scene or even a dead body without touching it? It might be a common law offence in obstructing the coroner under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 but still a lot resides on the certain identification of human remains which often isn't that obvious.
Ethics seem to apply a lot to religious views I cant help you there much. You also probably don't want to get involved if there are any people claiming ancestry around. You might what to contemplate this
One way round things is to record every thing as yet another example of a missing link. Everybody's at it, heres the latest. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/...-evolution
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...ght=burial
Bombbert what connection are you looking for between ethics and the law. I don't think that the law mentions archaeology. The law would appear to be the Burial Act from last century which is kinda concerned mostly about burying people in cemeteries and then not going around and digging them up without asking. This Act then seems to have been regulated into a licence which people worry about if they come across a burial outside of a cemetery: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/bur...ns-faq.pdf
I am not sure where the two year thing came from, its a kinda magic that departments can do and get away with until you can have a court case where the judges will say that the regs set a precedent. you might like to plead a human right to dig up and keep bones. Well I think that what is going on.
Obviously we are not talking about recent murder victims but if that was the case I don't know that there is any specific crime if an archaeologist did not report it. Possibly if you touch it you might be interfering with a crime scene but then how were you to know it was a crime scene or even a dead body without touching it? It might be a common law offence in obstructing the coroner under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 but still a lot resides on the certain identification of human remains which often isn't that obvious.
Ethics seem to apply a lot to religious views I cant help you there much. You also probably don't want to get involved if there are any people claiming ancestry around. You might what to contemplate this
Quote:Do I need a licence to remove foetal remains?what is a holder of the burial rights to the grave?
The removal of a buried foetus under 24 weeks' gestation does not require an exhumation licence. Arrangements may therefore be agreed with the land owner and the holder of the burial rights to the grave. A licence is required for the exhumation of a buried foetus over 24 weeksâ gestation.
One way round things is to record every thing as yet another example of a missing link. Everybody's at it, heres the latest. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/...-evolution
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist