Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
28th April 2010, 09:17 AM
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...onduct.pdf
[SIZE=1]Revised edition, April 2010
[SIZE=2]Included is this revision
Quote:[SIZE=1]
[SIZE=2]1.7 A member shall not knowingly be employed by, or contract with, an individual or entity whose purpose is the
sale of items excavated and/or recovered from archaeological contexts and where such sale may lead to the irretrievable dispersal of the physical and/or intellectual archive, or where such sale may result in an undispersed archive to which public access is routinely denied.
[SIZE=1]Note:
Members may be employed by or contract with, or participate in, projects approved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
Define Archaeological context please... as this seems to indicate rallies... does this redefine ploughsoil as an archaeological context? and does this impact on machining this off in a development?
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
28th April 2010, 09:33 AM
Does this apply to museums who sell items as an alternative means of funding?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
28th April 2010, 10:09 AM
I assume the get out in some cases would be 'knowingly'.
After all, and I'm sure the Unit would point this out, since the finds technically belong to the landowner they could decide to sell them on - as happened not too long ago with a Roman tombstone.
Would that therefore mean if the landowner made their intentions clear at the beginning - "this stuff all belongs to me in the eyes of the law so I am going to put it all on Ebay once you lot have finished with it" IfA members would be forced to say, "then I can't carry out the work for you", thus having to hand the site over to a non-IfA member who would not actually be in any way breaking the law (assuming no treasure was found etc) and would have no say in whether this was going to happen or not?
If the landowner only declared their intention afterwards (once they had seen what goodies there were to choose from) the IfA member would not have been knowingly involved. Until the planning conditions include a clause saying that the finds have to be deposited this could potentially put IfA members in a difficult position. Or does such a clause or way round this already exist. As far as I know that Roman tombstone ended up being purchased by the museum. What's to stop a mean landowner/developer holding all the finds to ransome? In fact, the wording of the IfA code seems to have even taken this sort of eventuality into account with the mention of material being dispersed and inaccessible. Presumably if the landowner sells it to the museum that is OK!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th April 2010, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 28th April 2010, 10:30 AM by Unitof1.)
redearth :face-approve:and bad
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
28th April 2010, 10:21 AM
Both what Sparky and BAJR admin, are good points.
However, most archaeologists won't be contracted for rallies it will either be volunteer or part of out reach right?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th April 2010, 10:22 AM
Out of interest does anybody know when they dropped the use of the word archaeologist and replaced it with another name for a tool and why?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2007
28th April 2010, 10:34 AM
Might it hinge on the word "purpose"? The purpose of a museum isn't to sell artefacts, and the purpose of the landowner who's hired you to conduct an investigation in advance of some development is likewise the completion of that development, not the sale of artefacts found in the course of.. (?)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th April 2010, 10:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 28th April 2010, 11:35 AM by Unitof1.)
might hinge on might
[SIZE=3]Looking at the [SIZE=2]code again (its not as good as mine) when are they going to replace the twenty hideous occurrences of the term his/her for non-anti hermaphrodite gender-neutral third person singular pronoun terms like their and themselves or just get rid of some of them[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
28th April 2010, 12:12 PM
Hi
Ploughsoil IS an archaeological context! Normally its context number (0001) just like topsoil on unploughed sites.
In terms of planning PPS5 states that the LPA should require any archive to be deposited with a local museum.
Also the guidance says that a WSI should include the provision for deposition of archive, and signing over the archive BEFORE a project starts.
This is already a requirement of some LPAs. So archaeologists (in planning based projects in counties such as Lincolnshire, Somerset etc) should not be starting a project without getting agreement to donate the archive as it would b e contrary to the LPA requirements (all this excludes Treasure Finds of course).
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th April 2010, 12:43 PM
the code, pps5 or lpas through town and country ignore rights of landownership and are without support in statute which basically makes any statements about the creation or deposit of archive at what ever stage of its creation foundless. The primary principle of the ifa- the archaeologist shall adhere to the highest (sic) standards of ethical behaviour in conduct of archaeological affairs doesnt mean anything and nor does anything that calls its self a subsequent rule.
