24th June 2014, 02:01 PM
Thanks Beamo. Just so that you understand my angle on cpo I believe that the archaeologist should be appointed by the landowner in order to protect the landowners archaeology and to allow the landowner to profit from their loss due to enforced development. And I understand the difference with the utilities and roads. I believe that the archaeologists via clause 25 should inform the landowners who they are specifically undertaking the work for, how much they are being paid for the work on their land and what the intention of that work is. I think that they should give the landowners the right to appoint their own archaeologist...
Yes I understand that the common practise is that archaeologists normally gain access to land via wayleave agreements although I am not sure that it specifically says that archaeology may be removed from the property or even specifically that archaeologists will be given access. I once a few years ago tried to get the ear of the nfu but failed but which is why clause 25 "as appropriate" catches my eye. The system that we have grow out of the archaeologists basically being public servants with archaeology a public service. I see commercial archaeology as adversarial in which the field archaeologists is involved to make profit from making profit from archaeology for the landowner. Field archaeology through eu treaty is supposed to be funded by polluter pays principles which I think includes the authorising authority. When you say
In many way the evolved attitude is very colonial and I sometimes wish that "we" had an indigenous people to kick up a fuss.
Yes I understand that the common practise is that archaeologists normally gain access to land via wayleave agreements although I am not sure that it specifically says that archaeology may be removed from the property or even specifically that archaeologists will be given access. I once a few years ago tried to get the ear of the nfu but failed but which is why clause 25 "as appropriate" catches my eye. The system that we have grow out of the archaeologists basically being public servants with archaeology a public service. I see commercial archaeology as adversarial in which the field archaeologists is involved to make profit from making profit from archaeology for the landowner. Field archaeology through eu treaty is supposed to be funded by polluter pays principles which I think includes the authorising authority. When you say
Quote:For motorways and trunk roads the landowner (in England) is the Highways Agencyis there a deed or a piece of paper specifying the specific entity that might be considered the owner of the land. I would of course still argue that clause 25 seems to warn the archaeologist that there may be many people who have rights to the land and that the archaeologist should get a grip on them all but I have never seen much consideration given.
In many way the evolved attitude is very colonial and I sometimes wish that "we" had an indigenous people to kick up a fuss.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist