How to remove archaeology before planning!?

[kevin wooldridge]

Agree Troll with your last sentence. I was just writing on the 'Nottingham meeting' thread that in Norway any archaeological remains predating 1538 are automatically protected...no ambiguity....until the national curatorial body gives permission for it to be touched. Same law or even wider law should also apply to the UK....

[Unitof1]

Six year old boy finds lost city of Atlantis in back garden criminalized for illegal excavation. Fat pension grabbing local unit director shocked at the lack of standards. Union spokesman cried! “Archaeology is simply enshrined within unambiguous law in the UK and I for one think that this is disgusting, a total lack of parental control. Its this type of thing that leads to the breakdown of closed shop working practises.” Who ever is responsible, and that included the landowner, should be taken to court or at the very least sent to Norway for sterilisation


http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-04...ie-en.html

[kevin wooldridge]

(signing with utter weariness....) There are few places, if any, in the world where 6 year olds are criminalised for anything.

I sometimes wish Uo1 that rather than spout in the manner of a Daily Mail leader writer you might actually read some of the items you quote as reference. If you had bothered to read the article you reference above, you would have realised it refutes the allegations that any Scandinavian country practiced forced sterilisation above and beyond the levels seen in other western European countries (including the UK) in the period 1934-1976. You are also clearly ignorant of the debate in the UK in the 70s and early 80s regarding the forced injection of the drug Depo Provera to far more girls and women than covered by all the Scandinavian countries combined. Moreover the article equates the practice of sterilisation with the same misguided health initiaitives that popularised lobotomy to cure mental shortcomings over the same time period. Nothing that any nation should be proud of, but a widespread practice that was scarcely restricted to Scandinavia.

Please in future stick to something you know about (now why do I find that thought amusing......)!!

[Steven]

Not only that....I have excavated seemingly "wrecked" archaeology for most of my career and have recovered huge amounts of data. I think the important element of this thread is for me quite an old chesnut...... Archaeology is simply not enshrined within unambiguous law in the UK and I for one think that this is either disgusting, deliberately delayed or predictable.:face-stir:

Hi
Um,,,What about the Archaeological Monuments and Areas Act 1979? Pretty clear law.

[troll]

...but no use whatsoever within commercial archaeology unless any proposed development falls within the remit of the 1979 Act.....and the vast majority of development over the past 30 years has indeed fallen outside of said remit.....clear? Maybe. Useful as a generic protective measure? Nope.:face-huh:

[BAJR]

Please in future stick to something you know about (now why do I find that thought amusing......)!!

Because it will be very quiet .. or does it not include things he thinks he does know about?


And Steven... although... yes there is the act...

the wiffle factor is high... and to show how high, the4 Areas of Archaeological Importance... needed PPG to back it up/supercede it... now if anything needs PPG to be better than it... gawd elp us

And the Act states the site/monument must be in the opinion of the Secretary of State of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it".

Yoiks... were all dooooomed!

Anyone know of any prosecutions brought about by wilfull damage prior to development... I can think of some where we were helpless

[Unitof1]

in Norway any archaeological remains predating 1538 are automatically protected...no ambiguity....until the national curatorial body gives permission for it to be touched
　
whats the basis of this protection? Is there a concept of ownership, who owns it?
I can see now that I have been describing these things using terms that belong to nationalists who have monopolised the term archaeologist, no doubt to protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study which justifies everything doesn’t it.
From here on pottery sherd becomes metamorphosed aluminium silicate clast. At last freedom, the weight is lifted from my shoulders. hello carbonised organic remain, my old friend.
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][SIZE=2]http://www.thelocal.se/12872/20080706/[/SIZE]

[kevin wooldridge]

The basis of the protection is that ...er....archaeological remains are protected by the state... irrespective of who may own the land upon which they are located.

As an example, if you happen to have a burial mound in your backgarden it is your backgarden, but all aspects of the the mound are protected by the state. There are restrictions on what you may or may not do within close vicinity of the defined 'monument'. It is normally accepted that a 5m protected zone is in place around the monument and obviously there are also restrictions applying where the setting of a monument might be affected by wider development. Norway is very close to having completed a national registration survey of visible and known archaeological remains, and in the case of unexpected or unknown remains there is a duty to report where such remains are uncovered.

Landowners can apply to alter a monument and may or may not receive permission subject to archaeological provision. Where there is a suspicion of intention to alter a monument without permission, landowners can be issued with a prohibition order and if such an order is breached may be subject to legal proceedings. There are cases where fines in excess of 1 million kroner (c ?110,000) have been imposed against individuals who knowingly damage archaeological remains. Individuals have also been ordered to pay for the cost of restitution of the monument, archaeological works resulting from recording of damage and removal of the development resulting from the breach.

Fortunately the majority of Norwegians are law-abiding and I have found in general proud of their shared heritage. Of course there are some individuals who share the Uo1 mindset, but fortunately most of that small number are either confined to their padded cells or are receiving professional help with their problems.....

[Unitof1]

is that slightly better than Article 3


Article 3
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.

Thank myhamhead that Americans can carry arms

Fortunately the majority of Norwegians are law-abiding

Samuel Balto -There is no such thing as society or a watching brief

[BAJR]

Moving gently away from the point...