Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments
#31
apart from replaceing member for archaeologists (when did they do that/whoes baby was it?)
I thought I would analysis the changes to the code since 1998 as I have a paper copy locked away so that they cant change it

1 changed
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
notes changed
1.5
1.6 changed
notes removed
1.7 new
notes with new note
1.8 was 1.7
1.9 was deleted but is now what was 1.8 this is my favourite of all time
1.10
notes
1.11
1.12 changed
notes
1.13
1.14 new
2
2.1
2.2
notes
2.3
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8 new

They seem to run out of wind for change after the first principle. Either the first principle was rubbish or nobody can be bothered after trying to sort the first priciple rules out to read much further
Reply
#32
Code for self-employed field archaeologists

1st Principle
Archaeology is produced by field archaeologists.

Rule
1.1 Field Archaeology is the observation produced by the physical examination of the world.
1.2 Field Archaeology is the process of producing archaeological observations
1.3 The archive is a product of field archaeology
1.4 The archive includes any reports or documents that relate to the observations

2nd Principle
Archaeology is owned.

Rule
2.1 An archaeologists holds copyright on their observations.
2.2 An archaeologists shall recognise the copyright of all other archaeologists
2.3 The landowner owns any potential archaeology on their land
2.4 Any archaeologist undertaking field archaeology must first secure the permission of the landowner and others with rights to the ownership of the land
2.5 An archaeologist may sell, lease, lend, their observations.
Reply
#33
I know I'm going to regret this............. Principle 1 - no it isn't! It's a bit like the thing about a tree falling down in a jungle when there's no-one there to hear it. Of oucrse archaeology is not "produced" by archaeologists, whether field, harvest or dor! (I'm not sure why there is this emphasis on "field").

I might start on the rest later, if I have the will............. or BAJRites could take one each? Or not. My god I'm talking like him now...................
Reply
#34
who prduces it then?
Reply
#35
Archaeology is produced by the activities of people in the past. Or indeed the present. And it will be produced in the future. No mention of 'field' required. I agree that archaeologists should secure access, but this is required already. To return to the point of the thread, I'm not sure this would even apply to rallies unless people declare at the outset that their intention is to flog everything. probably most of it ends up in peoples private collections.
Reply
#36
Quote:
Members may be employed by or contract with, or participate in, projects approved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
If you were to have a code for FIELD archaeologists would it start with some principle called ethics and resonable behavior and by rule 1.7 be about (or not wooo)some cheap antiquities scheme which is likely to go bust at any time

and since when is the PAS an approval scheme.

Quote:
Archaeology is produced by the activities of people in the past
What?
Reply
#37
Quote:'m not sure this would even apply to rallies unless people declare at the outset that their intention is to flog everything. probably most of it ends up in peoples private collections.

Anyone care to test it out Wink Would it be just one person selling on Ebay, or a percentage? or er.. what? and as I keep saying... what happens in Scotland... without the PAS seal of approval? :face-thinks:
Reply
#38
Or anywhere outside England - a member does not have to be practising in the UK, or be British, to be bound by the Code. However, I'm not seeing the particular problem with the Note. It doesn't say "must" or "shall", it says "may". This means that it is permissible, not compulsory.
Reply
#39
Quote:[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]
[SIZE=2]1.7 A member shall not knowingly be employed by, or contract with, an individual or entity whose purpose is the sale of items excavated and/or recovered from archaeological contexts and where such sale may lead to the irretrievable dispersal of the physical and/or intellectual archive, or where such sale may result in an undispersed archive to which public access is routinely denied.
[SIZE=1]
Note:
Members may be employed by or contract with, or participate in, projects approved by the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

So is it possible to take part in a project not approved by PAS (as someone has said, what does this approval consist of? ) but still is within the code 1.7 - and can one get invovled with a rally where the [SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]individual or entity is not involved in the [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1] [SIZE=2]sale of items excavated and/or recovered from archaeological contexts BUT where some people involved in the event may do? Is it the sole purpose.. in which case we are talking purely about ...shall we say... er... salvage operations? such as say... sunken treasure? I would like to have clarification... as it is not clear whether my invovlement in recording hundreds of artefacts and producing a 150 page report and passing all information and digital date to the HER with the aid of PAS would contravene the code... would I have been guilty ??
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Reply
#40
Yep. If all the proceeds of the sale of the artefacts went to the landowner and he paid the metal detectorists for their labour and they all chipped in for your 'expenses', for example.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  CIfA Client guide published BAJR 44 16,040 6th July 2015, 11:44 AM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  English Heritage issues revised statement on portable antiquities and surface collect BAJR 8 3,373 28th January 2014, 01:23 PM
Last Post: Jack
  London-Brum high speed raillink route published Bier Keller 2 1,735 30th December 2010, 11:22 AM
Last Post: benmoore
  "Industry code of practice" a possible need for further development? archaeologistkarl 8 3,080 28th April 2010, 08:13 AM
Last Post: oldgirl
  BAJR Conference Published BAJR Host 1 947 13th January 2007, 12:16 PM
Last Post: BAJR Host
  BAJR Conference Papers - published BAJR Host 1 906 13th January 2007, 12:16 PM
Last Post: BAJR Host
  Da Vinci Code and (pseudo)archaeology Paul Barford 8 3,302 9th August 2006, 12:32 PM
Last Post: Tim

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)