BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Whats in their briefs?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Quote:3.6.4 In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with
the landowner, except where other law overrides this (e.g. Treasure Act 1996, Burial
Act 1857). The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist
must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief, WSI or project design).

This paragraph appears in a lot of the ifa fieldwork standards. I was just wondering if anybody could show me a brief where this obscure bit of English law is made clear to landowners. There's no examples that I know off issued by the Lincolnshire LPAs. I would be interested in what other archaeologists do about this guidance.

wondered when you would get round to this. it is spectacularly missing from loads of lpa briefs and in fact is worded to imply that objects have to be deposited in a museum or planning conditions will not be discharged
I take it you make it clear when you deal with a landowner... whether or not the planning archaeologist said it. given the quote clearly states.

Quote:The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork OR the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the inception of the project

The operative word is OR .. which is not the same as AND. One OR other of you have a duty to let them know. just because it is not in teh brief does not mean it should not be in your project design and/or the information you provide to the client.
i always make it clear
Given that many lpas do not issue briefs, I usually include this information as standard in WSIs. Any document linking discharge of condition with deposition of artefacts is misleading.

Wonder no more Prentice I have grasped last straw and the back broke.

Hosty do any of the briefs in Scotland make it clear that the artefacts belong to the Crown?

Although there is the first use of the word OR in the sentence the MADE CLEAR AT INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT might suggest that if the applicant approaches the LPA first that it would be helpful that the LPA should make ownership clear if only for their own understanding of NPPF. If anything the final statement (IN THE BRIEF, WSI OR PROJECT DESIGN) does not seem to allow an exception in both the brief and the project design or WSI. I think that the OR in this segment confuses that statement suggesting that there is a choice rather than that project designs and WSI are the same thing. There must be a LPA somewhere in England and Wales that mentions ownership in their briefs or are they relying on referencing ifa Standards and guidance's that might contain the statement? I suggest that that's only clear if WSI and project designs are the same thing.

In my WSIs I have always used the term "It will be asked of the applicant to donate the artefacts with the archive". I think that makes it clear that artifacts belong to the applicant.

What I think is most problematic with this sentence is the use of the word donate. I think it is what the ifa want the applicant to do but I like to use the word because of this sense:

The word donate is used in the ifa standards and guidance's

3.6.7 Except in Scotland, in the event that the landowner is unwilling, for whatever reason,
to donate the finds to the appropriate recipient museum, the archaeologist
undertaking the fieldwork must endeavour to ensure all artefacts are recorded, safely
packaged and conserved where appropriate before transfer to the owner, and that
their location and ownership are stated in the site archive and public record. It should
be noted that the owner’s explicit (written) permission is required before entering such
personal information in the public record (see inter alia the Data Protection Act 1984).

"inter alia" it is obviously possible that the owner does not have to give any permission and that there should not be a concept of transfer

Here is mine ( for I work in Scotland)

  1. All finds will be subject to the Scottish laws of Treasure Trove and Bona Vacantia, and will be reported to the Crown Agent for disposal. Appropriate conservation of finds will be conducted before disposal as part of a post excavation agreement.
inter alia Bona Vacantia

Bona Vacantia in England is but in England because of context being referenced to land ownership the objects belong to the landowner to do with. In Scotland there is an office called the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer and they lump portable antiquities into treasure trove possibly the putting of value on to non gold or silver objects. Have they ever done that hosty?

In Scotland they seem to take portable antiquities to the criminal level:

Found portable antiquities must be reported to the Crown by the Finder through the
TreasureTrove Unit or an appropriate intermediary (e.g. a museum). Misappropriation of
found portable antiquities is the crime of theft and dishonest dealing in such items is the
crime of reset, or receiving stolen property. Failure to report the Finding of portable
antiquities or the removal of found portable antiquities from Scotland (including to
elsewhere in the United Kingdom) may provide evidence of misappropriation. Cases of
apparent dishonesty will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal or Police for investigation and
consideration of criminal proceedings. Offences are punishable by a Fine or a term of
imprisonment or both.

So I imagine hosty that the LPAs would be very certain to put a statement in about ownership OR do they just consider the IFA statement only applicable to England and Wales?

Just out of interest hosty, in Scotland as the ownership lies with the crown does that make the reporting of the context irrelevant?

Beamo Which LPAs don't issue briefs?
IT is all to be found here in the pish poor website:

To help... here are the direct links

General Finders and Detectorists - what objects to report, how to report an object and what happens when an object is claimed

Excavators - how to report an excavation assemblage, how to remove excavated material from Scotland and seeking permission for destructive analysis of artefacts

There is no need to stipulate the law. as the law is the law. Just as I don't say you should have a driving licence to get to site. I do however make it clear in my WSI what will happen to finds... I have to report them to the Crown and they are disposed to museums. ( or skip if they are disclaimed)
Yes the law is the law but in Scotland's case the law appears to also be the Crown and common law which does not appear to be the same as the common law in England. More like a local law controlled by the Crown or rather a Museum service? I don't know if this a result of Scottish exemption from fundamentals like the Magna Carta which is much beyond me and seems to be concerned with fish weirs but I would think that the ifa when issuing standards and guidance's would be trying to set a generic standard for archaeologists including so called planning archaeologists to follow. The IFA standard reads as the planning archaeologists should make it clear in the brief and the real archaeologist should make it clear as well which would give the landowner the chance to compare and critically asses their position...Are there any examples of briefs clearly stating the landowners rights in Scotland or England Wales (Ireland)?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6