20th June 2016, 05:56 PM
I agree that there is a MAJOR problem with briefs and holding 'Archaeological Advisors' (CCs/Consultants) to account on any matter actually related to the archaeology; personally I have pretty much given up on a System that needs fixing from bottom to top...i have 6 or 7 examples now of total indifference on a variety of issues, from Professionals in key positions, who frankly should be ashamed to call themselves Archaeologists. 5 years later, and total impact = zero, so make your own calculations...
However, i have some issues with the following;
"What "must" an archaeologist do be sure that they have followed the Cifas guidance on ownership?"
+
"What the economics say is that I record the site, leave the objects on site and let the public depository pick them up and identify them if they want."
= perhaps a problematic contradiction indeed!
BUT > as an Archaeologist, there is a clear Moral and Ethical expectation from society (and other Archaeologists) that a Duty of Care will be followed by a 'practitioner of Archaeology' in regard of the material remains of the past they encounter, regardless of Policies, Laws, or particular professional memberships.
However, i have some issues with the following;
"What "must" an archaeologist do be sure that they have followed the Cifas guidance on ownership?"
+
"What the economics say is that I record the site, leave the objects on site and let the public depository pick them up and identify them if they want."
= perhaps a problematic contradiction indeed!
BUT > as an Archaeologist, there is a clear Moral and Ethical expectation from society (and other Archaeologists) that a Duty of Care will be followed by a 'practitioner of Archaeology' in regard of the material remains of the past they encounter, regardless of Policies, Laws, or particular professional memberships.