Article 3 of Valetta

[BAJR Host]

Article 3 of Valetta states:

To preserve the archaeological heritage and guarantee the scientific significance of archaeological research work, each Party undertakes:

i. to apply procedures for the authorisation and supervision of excavation and other archaeological activities in such a way as:

a. to prevent any illicit excavation or removal of elements of the archaeological heritage;

b. to ensure that archaeological excavations and prospecting are undertaken in a scientific manner and provided that:

– non-destructive methods of investigation are applied wherever possible;

– the elements of the archaeological heritage are not uncovered or left exposed during or after excavation without provision being made for their proper preservation, conservation and management;

ii. to ensure that excavations and other potentially destructive techniques are carried out only by qualified, specially authorised persons;

iii. to subject to specific prior authorisation, whenever foreseen by the domestic law of the State, the use of metal detectors and any other detection equipment or process for archaeological investigation.

We are concentrating on the Section ii only for this poll



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Barford]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

We are concentrating on the Section ii only for this poll

Can you explain how (and why) you propose divorcing section ii from section i (or indeed the rest of the document)? The three parts of Article 3 are an integral whole, since section ii and iii are an expansion of section i. If you look at the punctuation. you will see that its all one sentence, in other words you are asking people to vote "Not as it is presently worded" on just one clause of a complex sentence, that is on an incomplete thought. This clause refers back to the verb and object of the clause at the beginning of Article 3(i).

Please look again at at section iii which is where I presume the problem lies for you because it mentions the M.... D.... words. It states: "whenever foreseen by the domestic law of the State" and UK law does not as you (and the detectorists here) know "forsee" it [except of course the case of certain categories of site, such as scheduled ones]. Neither does Article 3 state there SHOULD be such a law; this is a common misunderstanding. Also if you look harder it says "the use of metal detectors [...] for archaeological investigation". So its not (arguably) applicable to the hobbyists anyway. But it does have an important element, that any potentially destructive process archaeologists might like to use in our investigations (dynamiting open tombs for example) should be specifically mentioned on this permit.

So can somebody explain where is the problem on voting on the whole of Article 3 and not just one fragment of it - which in any case was surely the topic of the previous poll?

Paul Barford

[BAJR Host]

The reason was just to look at the Qualified and specially Authorised - ie Chartered or Licenced bit.

I have however put up the whole Article 3 as reference - I could have of course just quoted ii. But that would be silly. section i does not mention MD but I did not include that either. I just went for the bit that seemed to relate to Licencing. apologies if I did not make that clear.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Gizmo]

What is 'qualified'? Because I have a degree am I qualified? Some of the best archaeologists I have worked with do not have degrees but does this mean they are not qualified? On the same theme, some of the most stupid and incompetent diggers I have worked with have more letters after their name than I could remember. So do they have more right to dig then those without degrees/ masters/ PhD’s ……………..
So I suppose my point is …. What does being ‘qualified’ entail???????

[BAJR Host]

In this context it is not the Digger that requires the qualification / or Authorisation... it is the equivilent of the Licence system - a named individual who has proved to a panel of peers that they are capable ( qualified / Authorised ) to carry out the work to a specified and quantifiable level. Now you could say MIFA ... you could ... but as you say ... theres some that can and some that can't shall we say!

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[tom wilson]

My memory is a little hazy, but didn't the UK government stall for ages over ratifying Valletta and then basically say 'oh yes, we do all that already'?

Are there any curators out there who have seen any changes since Valletta?
Because we don't really conform to Article 3 ii, do we.

[Paul Barford]

quote:and then basically say 'oh yes, we do all that already'

Its hardly surprising because Valetta is a revision of th 1969 convention which contains much the same things and if you look at it in its wider European context at the time basically an attempt to impose the British model (which was then developing under the heavy influence of US CRM) on the rest of Europe. Which makes the UK's later feet dragging over the later revision so difficult to understand. Article 3 of the 1969 document was basically the same idea but more vaguely phrased and Britain ratified the first version (right away I think) and did not do anything about introducing these measures then either.
This is what it said:
"ARTICLE 3
To give full scientific significance to archaeological excavations in the sites, areas and zones designated in accordance with Article 2 of this Convention, each Contracting Party undertakes, as far as possible, to:
* prohibit and restrain illicit excavations;
* take the necessary measures to ensure that excavations are, by special authorisation, entrusted only to qualified persons;
* ensure the control and conservation of the results obtained."

Paul Barford

[historic building]

Well it is in agreement with paragraphs 20 and 21 of PPG16 which requires archaeologists to be professionally qualified and experienced. It can only really be seen to impact upon excavations managed by amateur societies.

[Paul Barford]

These paragraphs refer to evaluations, while Valetta is talking about excavations (invasive investigations) in general. It is intended to apply to all and not just the work of amateurs as the explanatory report among other things makes clear.

.

[historic building]

I do think by logic that you can read PPG16 to include excavations undertaken within the planning system and this is what it has been taken to mean for about 16 years now. Obviously it would be utterly absurd that evaluations have to be undertaken by suitably qualified staff whilst any random punter can undertake an excavation.