Contract lengths

[Unitof1]

Drpeterwardle said

“Work by stat. undertakers is how ever very different. It is however very far from a complete stitch up.”

Most pipelines bar some local schemes have a right of access in their legislation which basically disembowels the landowner and in the melee places archaeology at the bottom of the landowners concerns. Although presented in a compensatory way in all cases the archaeologists are employed by the developer and the archaeologists being quite contemptuous of landowners and the ownership of archaeology, are all too happy to play along. I would suggest that this is a total stitch up and leads to the types of sycophantic archaeology that we have occurring on the national pipeline schemes. I think all landowners have every right to be very contemptuous of archaeologists as a result

Hows this for a model. Landowner appoints their own archaeologist to undertake the work then charges the developer for copyright to use the archaeology in their planning application and takes a 100% commission for the loss of Their potential archaeology-the 100% of the costs of undertaking the archaeology.

There’s this going on for example
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1374032006

this is an old example

http://www.revolt.co.uk/news90.html

hosty in what way are you involved in two what?

[Pipeliner]

Hi Unitof1

Very interesting view

I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain what the "sycophantic archaeology" is on national pipelines, as I am unsure what you are alluding to and would love to comment and move this discussion further.

[Unitof1]

Pipeliner

who owns the copyright of the archaeology found on stat. undertakers pipelines?

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

".. in all cases the archaeologists are employed by the developer and the archaeologists being quite contemptuous of landowners and the ownership of archaeology, are all too happy to play along."

Most if not all commercial archaeological projects are funded by the developer (who may/may not also be the land owner (red text)) so there is little difference in this part of the point against 'standard' commercial projects. In any case under the terms of a normal project ownership of the retrieved archaeological artefacts and (normally, perhaps with a short terms restriction on release) records of any deposits/features would pass to the receiving museum (copyright stays with the contractor with right of reproduction passed to the museum and client depending on the contract for normal projects). With regard to feelings of contempt, this really should be nipped in the bud by the archaeological contractor or consultant because there really isn't any need for animosity.


È venuto dal deposito

[BAJR Host]

Small reminder to people in general and Uof1 in particular that the AUP is getting stretched here. Alluding is not that great if it becomes obvious who is being alluded to. Also - using terms like "sycophantic archaeology " is not that good an idea when it could be traced to an individual or company. I don't mind debate... but at the end of the day... BAJR is the one that gets sued..so I will implement AUP if I feel it is compromised or pushed...



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[beamo]

Unitof1

'who owns the copyright of the archaeology found on stat. undertakers pipelines?'

What do you mean by copyright - are you referring to the copyright of the reports, or of the paper archive - in either case it remains with the contractor that produced the written work, but usually has a proviso that it may be used and/or copied for research purposes of development control purposes.

My experience with the ownership/archiving of material from pipelines is that it is much the same as for any other project except more timeconsuming to sort out as you have to deal with lots of landowners rather than just one. Usually not all landowners respond to letters sent out, although it is possible to persuade the recipient museum to accept the archive if you have several signed agreements and evidence that you have tried to contact the others. If any landowner wants to have the finds from their land returned to them, then this is fine and they will be delivered ready packed and boxed.

I'm not sure how or why the archaeologists should be seen as being contemptuous towards landowners.


Beamo

[Pipeliner]

Sorry Mr Hosty wasnt my intention to cause any offence or problems with any alluded to comments.....AUP Away....and will be more carefull in future


Believe that the copyright of the archaeological work actually rests with the Client rather than with the archaeological contractor, as they have paid for the work to be carried out. However, as the archaeological information should be published and diseminated into the public domain and the archive deposited, then the copyright issue doesnt really become an issue.

[BAJR Host]

So'OK Pipey just waving a small but bright red flag )

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Unitof1]

Hi Hosty

I dont think that it is the fault of the archaeologists and the diggers that they could appear sycophantic or contemptuous but more the result of how the relationships have evolved through << edited BAJR >> –cut away if you get a twinge #

<< If you know that you are treading a line ... please respect me and this forum - thats all I ask >>

Hi Barnesy

The developer is funding the archaeology because they are forced by the system. I think that this thread started with the hard facts of the diggers allusions to bleak Christmas which is possibly indicative that the units aren’t so far behind hence the potential for conflicts of interest in solving the clients archaeological problem in the most cost effective way. That I used developer to describe statutory undertaker is probably a mistake as you seem to suggest that being the landowner or not is not relevant from a view of town and Country planning acts. I suggest that it is relevant when compulsory powers are involved- authorised by the “system”. The threat is pretty powerful but the powers are barely used but it would appear that the transpoter gains full rights over the archaeology for temporary access. I imagine the view of an archaeologist that the landowners get is one that is all too ready to be sanctioned by the system and more so when we prefer to uphold standards and methodologies approved by the authorising authority who spend all (most) of their time with the statutory undertaker- distant and local- rather than with the landowner.

In as much that I refer to the contempt most archaeologist have for land owners as I have said previously in this thread I dont think that the IFA goes very far in matters of ownership of the archaeology. That as you point out the ownership should end up in the archive location and seeking this permission at “an early stage” is about the only reference the codes have to the responsibilities of an archaeologist on the matter of seeking ownership of something archaeological and in this case it would appear to be mainly artifactual and does not mention the copyrights that an archaeologist might be hoping to provide for their clients (implicit in the code is a hint that ownership is not an obvious thing and possibly that it exists prior to an archive being deposited). I dont think it tests much metal particularly for all our little busman’s holidays in dodgy foreign lands.

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.” Is the only other place the landowner gets a mention- it does not expand “rights and responsibilities”

These pipelines have ploughed through most counties over the last two decades unstoppably with a tiny bit of mitigation often applied post consent. I doubt that many landowners were aware of the results of the archaeological endeavours or that they had much chance to get to like the archaeologists until after the event (thankfully?) but at a county level these pipelines would have been a big issue

I maintain that they detest us probably with a passion and associate most of our work leading to further conditions being placed on their land. The recent COSMIC survey gave up trying to sample non scheduled monuments because of the unwillingness of landowners to let them on..... . I suggest that landowners control most of our remaining archaeology and as EH is so happy to point out are smashing it to bits with subsoiling. I think EH approached 47 of them and told them which areas we were interested in. The same land agents who advised their clients about hedge rows are still out there..oh it is a bleak Christmas

Hi beamo

I am not sure what the copyright is but could I suggest that the problem with the reality that you present is that it is very much after the event and pretty much object orientated- IFA codes and all that

“If any landowner wants to have the finds from their land returned to them, then this is fine and they will be delivered ready packed and boxed.” If they were to follow it up and request the full related data and set fire to it- now that would be great?

Yes Pipeliner I am not sure where it is nor where it should originate or go?

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

"That I used developer to describe statutory undertaker is probably a mistake as you seem to suggest that being the landowner or not is not relevant from a view of town and Country planning acts. "

Hi Unitof1,
No, I made a general point regarding the occasional overlap of the 'role' of developer and landowner, and that the developer normally funds commercial archaeological work, as you raised this as an issue with pipeline work.

È venuto dal deposito