Roman artefacts is to go on public

[garybrun]

http://tinyurl.com/33r2ny


quote:A large collection of Roman artefacts is to go on public display in Norwich for the first time, 30 years after they were unearthed by an amateur archaeologist.

Almost 50 boxes of pots, figurines and other items dug up at Brampton, near Aylsham, in the 1970s and 1980s have been bought so that they can be enjoyed by all.
Is this morally correct for an archaeologist to keep all the finds boxed in his house and then sell them?
Are we as detectorists in the same "box" or is their no differance?





Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Steven]

Hi Chaps
No it is not ethically or morally correct for an archaeologist to keep finds from an excavation to sell them. However, this is an amateur not a professional. Is it morally correct for a detectorists to do it? I suppose that depends on whether you think heritage is owned by a community or by individuls. There certainly appears to be an idea that "hitting the big score" is something every detectorist would like and the Treasure Act does place this in a legal context.

It can also be argued (well I will argue it anyway) that somebody who digs stuff up, doesn't accession the finds, doesn't write up the site, doesn't report it and then flogs the finds isn't an archaeologist as these things kind of define what we do!





Steven

[BAJR Host]

I think the word is amatuer archaeologist (my Mum could be called that too!) he was a retired GP... perhaps now even ... er dead (I am not sure about this) though I too think that if he excavated as an archaeologist.. this should not have been bought... though as it happened before the legislation was brought in..

hmmm... interesting

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

[garybrun]

The reason why I brought the subject up for debate was to highlight some of the notions people have of the heritage and I knew the detectorist side of things would also come under the same remit.

If your an amateur archaeologist should you not subscribe to the codes of an archaeologist? This is why I believe "archaeologist" should be a recognised title. Why this hasn't been sorted over the years I don't understand.

Can some one please explain why is not a recognised title and what must be put into place to make it one??



Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[BAJR Host]

If anyone can do that I'll give them a medal!

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

[1man1desk]

Any answer to this question hangs to some extent on the definition of the term 'amateur archaeologist'. To some, that means someone who, on an amateur basis, dedicates some of their time to the study of the human past through its physical remains. To others, it means someone who digs up old stuff for fun.

Personally, I subscribe to the first definition, and I think amateur archaeologists (in that sense) in the present day have generally absorbed the ethos that all excavations should be intended to go into the public domain, and the artefacts into a museum rather than a private collection. On that basis, an amateur archaeologist should not have behaved as this chap did. However, it is not really fair to impose the standards and attitudes of today on someone operating 30 years ago.

There is nothing illegal in a private individual digging up antiquities on their own account and keeping them in a private collection, as long as he/she has permission from the landowner and the site isn't protected. Whether the private individual calls themselves an 'archaeologist' is neither here nor there.

There is also nothing intrinsically wrong with a museum buying an existing private collection (after all, where do you draw the line? would you say that a museum should not buy a private collection that was dug up in the 18th century?).

What would be very troubling is if the museum was buying something that had been recently excavated, or where there was any suggestion that it had been excavated with the intention of selling it.





1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[garybrun]

After a little investigation it seems that the man mentioned in the article was not the one who decided to sell .
But it still doesn't take away from the debate:- and this is perhaps more important than a single case.

Why is "archaeologist" not an accredited title?
If it was there would be no problems with this sort of thing because the "title" would have rules and other stipulations attached to it? Will a chartered archaeologist be a dream or a reality?




Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[historic building]

Gary this is an article in a local paper, not a legal declaration of someone's status. I am sure he could also be described as a heritage hero.

[BAJR Host]

the question is whether being called an archaeologist can be used by anyone though.. and as it stands... yes.. not heritage hero.. not anything.. but yes .. the word archaeologist.

answers on a postcard?

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

[1man1desk]

Personally, as I think I may have mentioned before on other threads, I am very strongly in favour of both Chartered Institute status for the IFA and for 'archaeologist' becoming a protected title. However, the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other - anyone can be an 'engineer' or a 'surveyor', for instance, as long as they don't put the word 'chartered' in front of the title.

There are very few jobs where the title itself is protected and restricted to people with certain specific qualifications('doctor' and 'architect' are the only two I can think of off-hand).

I don't know the criteria for establishing either a Chartered Institute or a protected title, but I believe they are pretty stringent and that they require legislation of some sort. Neither is something that the archaeological profession can just do for itself.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished