+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - Alfie - 2nd March 2005
I agree that standards are subjective. I think the responsibilty for setting and maintaining standards lies with the curators. Contractors are generally not in the position to negotiate with developers for more than the minimum amount of investigation.A curator should be able to translate a regional research framework into standards which are tailored to address the particaular issues. That includes making sure that the seperate elements of recording are done to the same standard so that this will in turn inform the regional research framework. Standards ensure that similar sites can be assessed across a level playing field.The EH/Church of England document on the treatment of human remains is a broad brush approach. I referenced it in a recent brief and it has caused some headaches.But thats the point, these things must be put out, reviewed and adjusted if neccessary.
I will publish a regional standards document this summer which I hope will be refined and refered to in the new RDF.Contractors then have a clear guide to what is expected, if a WSI does not meet these standards I will not be able to agree it. Its the best solution I can come up with. I would like to see the industry re-think who we are and what we are trying to achieve because from my point of view it is not working.
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 2nd March 2005
I almost agree with what you say. Curators do not agree WSI they approve them.
The curators have a key role in maintaining standards in the PPG 16 system. I am not so sure that only curators should be involved in setting those standards. In a sense that is for national government to do if it is going to be binding and all should be consulted.
I think what you are doing with regional research frameworks is a good way forward. I think we forget that archaeology is about both preservation and research. I think that at present there are some serious difficulties with the system which are due to things being introduced which were not intended by PPG 16.
Public Archaeology is a good example - requiring this however desirable - is not part of land use planning except some very specific examples.
Peter
(I would interested to know the difficulties you have found with the CoE/EH guidelines on human remains. I am a consultant to one Diocese and have more than a passing interest to this. Off list may be) Now back to the VAT return any excuse not to do it!
Digger Article - sniper - 4th March 2005
As for the new EH/Church of England guidelines on human remains, its about time something was done. I am currently analysing and repackaging some skeletons that have been shoved into one bag per skelly and have sat there crumbling since 1989. And that is nothing compared with the project about to start involving a large number (200+) of bodies that have been sat unwashed in a church building in bags, sometimes three deep, since the early 1970s. mmm, bone crumbs. I have to say that the church seems to have been the worst offenders in poor treatment of human remains and I just hope that things can change. I won't even start on the story of the skeletons that were excavated and then reburied because the church refused to pay for post-ex because I may just explode....
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Digger Article - troll - 7th March 2005
Sniper-harsh but fair! Have lots of similar horror stories and know that plenty of other colleagues do too. This is exactly the sort of information that is consistently swept under the corporate carpet to protect"interests". This underlines the concept that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in rules/guidelines if they are not policed or worse, applied liberally in an overall culture of fear of whistleblowing. Elderly people are abused in care-whistleblowers showed us that.Dead childrens organs were/are removed and discarded as trash in NHS hospitals-again, revealed to us by people with moral values that override misguided corporate loyalties.Large "heritage" organisations secure jobs and funding by producing grand new schemes-otherwise known as "optional downloadable patches" over years. By the time some bright young thing actually makes things real-we`ve all forgotten what the fuss was about! Is the new EH/Churches thingy enforcable as part of the planning debacle?
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 7th March 2005
The new CofE/EH document is a code of practice.
Most work on activate Churches is controlled by a parallel system administered by the Church themselves.
Other work is controlled by Home Offices Licences.
Peter
Digger Article - troll - 7th March 2005
Thank you Peter. Looks as though this could be a step in the right direction then. Am about to carry out analyses of Human remains in the near east-you would`nt believe the overriding attitude to Human remains over there-if they`re not post-Christian, they`re ignored..best wishes and further apologies for a runaway mouth...
Digger Article - Alfie - 7th March 2005
The new COE/EH guidelines are ok. As Peter says there is a parallel system in place by which the Home Office delegate the authority for the licence administration to the Church. Instead of a licence you apply for a faculty from the Chancellor. A cynical hearted individual might be of the opinion that the Church is looking for ways to side step the disused burial ground act (ammended 1981)which prevents development on a churchyard. Where the land is considered to be consecrated it is exempt from that act and the Church can develop if they physically attach any new structure to the Church. By taking a more pragmatic theological approach to human remains the Church could concievably develop much more of their considerable holdings.
The parallel system is a remarkable bit of medieval life preserved in aspic. Ever heard of the Court of Arches? Neither had I.. I believe the Hogwarts express stops there though.
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 7th March 2005
The Church system is based upon a faculty being granted by the Diocesan Advisor Board which has specialist archaeological advice. In some areas the advisor is the local curator is other areas a Church specialist. The Bishop also has powers to grant permissions.
The code of practice should be read in conjunction with "faith in the Future" which considers what should happen to historic Church.
The notion that the Church can develop on a Churchyard simply because a new building is attached to a Church is incorrect. There is no such assumption.
Redundant Churches are even more complex because any re-development is covered by the planning system as well as Church Commissioners Covenants and Home Office Licences.
The new guidelines actually make it much harder to develop on Churchyards.
Peter
Digger Article - Alfie - 8th March 2005
The Disused Burial Ground Act 1884 requires that no building work may take place on a disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a Church. Of course the 1981 Amended Act does effectively allow development if inhumations have not taken place for 50 years although any objections from relatives of the deceased will preclude any development.
This does not apply to consecrated ground. Pastoral Measure 1983 can be applied in this case which essentially makes provision for the maintenance of a burial ground. The legal implications of consecration can be removed at the Churches discretion, although the land cannot be de-consecrated. Therefore the Church has two options to either apply to deconsecrate the Churchyard or find a piece of land for development within the Churchyard which has not been used for burials for 50 years, often tricky, as 50 years ago this problem was not thought of. No, in my experience the Church of England will go for option A. attach it to the Church.
It seems to me that this document is full of theological justifications for getting round the difficulty. When I started digging I am sure we were told that if you came across someone?s legs sticking out of the baulk you don?t just take them away. Now apparently we can. I do read this in light of Faith in the Future but I also read this in light of Nicholas Browns (a Roll A Parliamentary Agent and Solicitor) article Grave Considerations-The Development of Disused Cemeteries and Burial Grounds ? Tax Journal January 2003. This is an article which advocates selling of large cemetaries for development. He says ? Despite the complexities it is possible to remove the restrictions imposed and allow for the sale and development of areas where burial no longer occurs with the lure of significant financial incentives? It may well be just me but perhaps there are two ways to read this guidance.But that (and a fundamentally tenuous grip on the law )is why I am an archaeologist and not a Lawyer and will be till the day I am (temporarily) buried.
Digger Article - drpeterwardle - 9th March 2005
My understanding if the law is actually different to what you suggest and as I have had a long day I will respond in due course - which I know is no answer!
Peter[8D]