Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total Site removal... a look to American Pay Digs
#11
Quote:Does anyone know what the ad means by 'evaluated by archaeologists'?

I suspect it means 'and therefore we know there is lots of stuff to have'

:face-rain:
Reply
#12
Jesus, that is grim. Mind you, if it were on private land in the UK and the site wasn't protected could you not just do the same thing? Obviously, if you started advertising 'dig a Roman villa and take home the finds' word would get out pretty quickly and it might be Scheduled (although how quickly is anyone's guess). I did hear of a case recently where the landowner, because he was interested, started machining out part of a site and was effectively stopped because he needed permission to carry out what were judged to be engineering works (I think that was the term) and would thus have to apply for permission, which would then have had an archaeological condition placed on it. Does the US have any planning laws?
Reply
#13
RedEarth
You're spot on with this one. It would definitely be possible in England to advertise for people to come and excavate an archaeological site that was not scheduled. There would be no requirement to discuss this with any agency (English Heritage etc) or FLO, or the county archaeologist as long as the work remained outside the plannning system (i.e. don't use any heavy plant or move too much earth). There would be no requirement to excavate to any agreed standard, nor to record to any standard (or indeed to record anything), nor to deposit any archive, and as long as you are the landowner or have the landowner's permission, no reason why the people could not keep whatever they find as long as it does not fall within the Treasure Act.

Perhaps this is something that a revised Heritage Protection Bill might actually seek to address - we might eventually end up with legislation that protects our heritage not only from developers but from everyone else.


Beamo
Reply
#14
Maybe we shouldn't be giving people ideas for new businesses. It can't be scheduled anyway unless it meets the criteria. And even then, there is often not the political clout from national heritage agencies to do so.
Reply
#15
beamo Wrote:Perhaps this is something that a revised Heritage Protection Bill might actually seek to address - we might eventually end up with legislation that protects our heritage not only from developers but from everyone else.

"Wait! Let's not dig anything until an archaeologist has had a look!" Although the planning system has its drawbacks as a means of regulating and protecting archaeology, I'd be interested to see if a more comprehensive system could be workable without impacting on other industries' daily activities, such as agriculture.
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
Reply
#16
Quote:some will compare this also to metal detecting rallies

A lot of archaeologists (me included) don't mind rallys in principle so long as they stick to a recognised code of conduct, cooperate fully with the PAS and limit digging to the topsoil / ploughsoil. Anything else is essentially in the same territory as these people - i.e. the uncontrolled destruction of archaeological remains.
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]
Reply
#17
Quote:if a more comprehensive system could be workable without impacting on other industries' daily activities, such as agriculture

I'm afraid you'll be disappointed Windbag as the current trend appears to be in the other direction - with increased deregulation and expansion of permitted development rights for certain schemes including microgeneration. The ploughing of Scheduled Sites can only really be halted effectively now through Environmental Stewardship schemes which are voluntary and have done nothing to help protect these sites in my area - yet. Perhaps the incentives should be greater? And still it boils down to money, the reason the whole class consent for ploughing thing was fudged in the first place.

Still, at least no one is holding 'Digfests' on them..... :face-plain:
[INDENT]Shiny assed county mounty, office lurker, coffee junkie and facebook scanner[/INDENT]
Reply
#18
Can only agree... and indeed it is interesting that thee DigFests theoretically could take place here but don't.

Unless you count my plundering training digs Smile a pound a potsherd is my motto!
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Reply
#19
How does this sit with NAGPRA and federal/local government, are they aware of it?
Careful, it might be hallucinogEeEe**33nnnn..
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  It's that old travel to and from site hut out of pocket Marc Berger 4 3,937 11th June 2014, 07:46 AM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  Is there a bar in the site hut? Or can this be it? deadlylampshade 1,156 454,252 28th March 2014, 01:31 AM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Amazing French site -Bodies in the well BAJR 1 1,538 31st December 2013, 11:15 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Storm exposes site... how many more appear? BAJR 1 1,584 12th December 2013, 04:29 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Removal of a company from BAJR BAJR 2 3,035 10th December 2013, 01:13 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Development next to the Prittlewell burial site redexile 10 7,218 1st November 2013, 01:05 PM
Last Post: Kajemby
  Crannog site keeps on going! BAJR 1 1,554 14th April 2013, 04:55 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  'Haunted house' at skeletons car park site BAJR 6 4,106 11th April 2013, 07:15 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Ultimate Site Sieve! BAJR 10 5,013 15th February 2013, 10:50 AM
Last Post: VGC
  Archaeological Site Looting: A Public Opinion Poll BAJR 2 2,287 28th December 2012, 03:52 PM
Last Post: pdurdin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)