20th June 2016, 08:27 PM
I suppose that by duty of care that I leave the finds where they will not trip up anybody although I imagine that would fall under the land owners public liability insurance which is another reason to point out to the landowner that they belong to them.
The morals and ethics are that CIFA use the word “must” a lot in their codes. On ownership CIFA make a definitive connection between the ownership of the property and the ownership of the objects found on that property in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with the landowner. There are many countries in Europe and Scotland that make the ownership of objects a matter of the State. Along with The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief/project outline, WSI or project design).
There is
3.10.7 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 and ecofacts 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).
This has a must endeavour…. ecofacts are recorded….before transfer to the owner.
I don’t see how the field archaeologist gets the right of “transfer”
For an archaeologists to be sure that a landowner understands their ownership that the landowner would not give permission to have their personal information in the public record. I don’t think they need any reason to be unwilling to “donate”. The default should be that they have ownership. I think that to donate the automatic attitude of the landowner should be that they have ownership and that whoever wants the artefacts has to give the landowner a good reason why they should have them.
We have a public service that is being devastated mostly due to their unsustainable expense. There is a Public libraries and Museum Act of 1964 which expected local museums to charge at the door if they had to and to set up funds for the purchase of objects. The public libraries are almost a museum item but there are no local museums only county museums and they charge to deposit these "donated" items and publish no accounts.
The morals and ethics are that CIFA use the word “must” a lot in their codes. On ownership CIFA make a definitive connection between the ownership of the property and the ownership of the objects found on that property in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with the landowner. There are many countries in Europe and Scotland that make the ownership of objects a matter of the State. Along with The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief/project outline, WSI or project design).
There is
3.10.7 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 and ecofacts 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).
This has a must endeavour…. ecofacts are recorded….before transfer to the owner.
I don’t see how the field archaeologist gets the right of “transfer”
For an archaeologists to be sure that a landowner understands their ownership that the landowner would not give permission to have their personal information in the public record. I don’t think they need any reason to be unwilling to “donate”. The default should be that they have ownership. I think that to donate the automatic attitude of the landowner should be that they have ownership and that whoever wants the artefacts has to give the landowner a good reason why they should have them.
We have a public service that is being devastated mostly due to their unsustainable expense. There is a Public libraries and Museum Act of 1964 which expected local museums to charge at the door if they had to and to set up funds for the purchase of objects. The public libraries are almost a museum item but there are no local museums only county museums and they charge to deposit these "donated" items and publish no accounts.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist