+- 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: a dangerous precedent?? (/showthread.php?tid=2148)
a dangerous precedent?? - achingknees - 28th February 2006
squeezes? sorry to display my ignorance.
a dangerous precedent?? - Tile man - 28th February 2006
... I think graphite may be cheaper...
a dangerous precedent?? - beamo - 28th February 2006
1man1desk
You say
All I said is that the WSI would have to deal with the disposal of the finds, and that the developer would have to comply with what it said - not that the landowner could be made to sign away his/her rights.
.... there is no reason why a clause could not be included in the WSI in which they commit themselves to donate any archaeological remains to the recipient museum.
The developer would not have to comply with anything in the WSI if it were deemed to be an infringement of his/her rights under current legislation. A WSI may look to commit a developer or landowner to 'donate' archaeological remains to a specified museum, but the museum will only accept such a donation if it comes with a signed agreement of legal title.
What you appear to be suggesting is a clause that basically says 'We might find some artefacts on your land but cannot yet identify what sort, how many, current monetary value etc. However, whatever is found on your land during the course of archaeological excavations will automatically become the property of the specified museum, unless it falls within the remit of the Tresure Act or other legislation regarding human remains'.
I would regard such a clause as potentially adversely affecting the landowner's rights to ownership of all object that are found on (or in) their land.
Perhaps list-members with greater experience of the legal system may provide greater clarity on this issue.
I do agree with Curator Kid with regard to requiring full recording, drawing etc of all artefacts that are not going to be deposited in a museum. However, he is right to point out that anything required through a planning condition has to be 'reasonable'. As with so many of the things that we discuss here, I bet that this has never been tested in case law or through the Planning Inspectorate - i.e. how much recording of a single undecorated body sherd (one of thousands recovered from a site) is 'reasonable' ?
Beamo
a dangerous precedent?? - Tile man - 28th February 2006
This situatrion isn't entirely without precedent - Buildings archaeologists recording builidngs that are demolished, with some materials considerd salvage have mentioned this concern before.
As for reasonableness - a good guide would be the recomendations of groups of specialists ( i.e. for plain body sherds: No, Wt, Fabric, form, Sooting/ useware/ etc.
Unreasonable may be considerd : drawing, thin section, Chemical analysis of everything, rather than a properly constructed sample.
Perhaps best not get me started on CBM.... [8D]
a dangerous precedent?? - monitor lizard - 28th February 2006
Knees, a squeeze is pretty much a 'brass rubbing' of an inscription, but is usually done by pressing layers of thin paper or fabric against a surface to create a negative impression, that can then be flipped over and read. A much easier way of getting a 1:1 impression of an inscription than lugging a tombstone around.
TM - I would agree that you would have to consult the relevent specialists to see what would constitute a reasonable sample to fully record, and what that reasonable record would consist of.
Anyway, to quote from our guidance notes (and if you want to work here you will ascribe to them): If the archive is not be donated to an appropriate Museum arrangements will be made for a comprehensive records of all materials (including drawings, photographs and descriptions of individual finds), which can be deposited in lieu of the actual archive at an appropriate Museum.'That would seem to exclude the squeeze
!ML