15th December 2006, 05:33 PM
Hi Hosty
I dont think that it is the fault of the archaeologists and the diggers that they could appear sycophantic or contemptuous but more the result of how the relationships have evolved through << edited BAJR >> âcut away if you get a twinge #
<< If you know that you are treading a line ... please respect me and this forum - thats all I ask >>
Hi Barnesy
The developer is funding the archaeology because they are forced by the system. I think that this thread started with the hard facts of the diggers allusions to bleak Christmas which is possibly indicative that the units arenât so far behind hence the potential for conflicts of interest in solving the clients archaeological problem in the most cost effective way. That I used developer to describe statutory undertaker is probably a mistake as you seem to suggest that being the landowner or not is not relevant from a view of town and Country planning acts. I suggest that it is relevant when compulsory powers are involved- authorised by the âsystemâ. The threat is pretty powerful but the powers are barely used but it would appear that the transpoter gains full rights over the archaeology for temporary access. I imagine the view of an archaeologist that the landowners get is one that is all too ready to be sanctioned by the system and more so when we prefer to uphold standards and methodologies approved by the authorising authority who spend all (most) of their time with the statutory undertaker- distant and local- rather than with the landowner.
In as much that I refer to the contempt most archaeologist have for land owners as I have said previously in this thread I dont think that the IFA goes very far in matters of ownership of the archaeology. That as you point out the ownership should end up in the archive location and seeking this permission at âan early stageâ is about the only reference the codes have to the responsibilities of an archaeologist on the matter of seeking ownership of something archaeological and in this case it would appear to be mainly artifactual and does not mention the copyrights that an archaeologist might be hoping to provide for their clients (implicit in the code is a hint that ownership is not an obvious thing and possibly that it exists prior to an archive being deposited). I dont think it tests much metal particularly for all our little busmanâs holidays in dodgy foreign lands.
Code 25 âAn archaeologist embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping.â Is the only other place the landowner gets a mention- it does not expand ârights and responsibilitiesâ
These pipelines have ploughed through most counties over the last two decades unstoppably with a tiny bit of mitigation often applied post consent. I doubt that many landowners were aware of the results of the archaeological endeavours or that they had much chance to get to like the archaeologists until after the event (thankfully?) but at a county level these pipelines would have been a big issue
I maintain that they detest us probably with a passion and associate most of our work leading to further conditions being placed on their land. The recent COSMIC survey gave up trying to sample non scheduled monuments because of the unwillingness of landowners to let them on..... . I suggest that landowners control most of our remaining archaeology and as EH is so happy to point out are smashing it to bits with subsoiling. I think EH approached 47 of them and told them which areas we were interested in. The same land agents who advised their clients about hedge rows are still out there..oh it is a bleak Christmas
Hi beamo
I am not sure what the copyright is but could I suggest that the problem with the reality that you present is that it is very much after the event and pretty much object orientated- IFA codes and all that
âIf any landowner wants to have the finds from their land returned to them, then this is fine and they will be delivered ready packed and boxed.â If they were to follow it up and request the full related data and set fire to it- now that would be great?
Yes Pipeliner I am not sure where it is nor where it should originate or go?
I dont think that it is the fault of the archaeologists and the diggers that they could appear sycophantic or contemptuous but more the result of how the relationships have evolved through << edited BAJR >> âcut away if you get a twinge #
<< If you know that you are treading a line ... please respect me and this forum - thats all I ask >>
Hi Barnesy
The developer is funding the archaeology because they are forced by the system. I think that this thread started with the hard facts of the diggers allusions to bleak Christmas which is possibly indicative that the units arenât so far behind hence the potential for conflicts of interest in solving the clients archaeological problem in the most cost effective way. That I used developer to describe statutory undertaker is probably a mistake as you seem to suggest that being the landowner or not is not relevant from a view of town and Country planning acts. I suggest that it is relevant when compulsory powers are involved- authorised by the âsystemâ. The threat is pretty powerful but the powers are barely used but it would appear that the transpoter gains full rights over the archaeology for temporary access. I imagine the view of an archaeologist that the landowners get is one that is all too ready to be sanctioned by the system and more so when we prefer to uphold standards and methodologies approved by the authorising authority who spend all (most) of their time with the statutory undertaker- distant and local- rather than with the landowner.
In as much that I refer to the contempt most archaeologist have for land owners as I have said previously in this thread I dont think that the IFA goes very far in matters of ownership of the archaeology. That as you point out the ownership should end up in the archive location and seeking this permission at âan early stageâ is about the only reference the codes have to the responsibilities of an archaeologist on the matter of seeking ownership of something archaeological and in this case it would appear to be mainly artifactual and does not mention the copyrights that an archaeologist might be hoping to provide for their clients (implicit in the code is a hint that ownership is not an obvious thing and possibly that it exists prior to an archive being deposited). I dont think it tests much metal particularly for all our little busmanâs holidays in dodgy foreign lands.
Code 25 âAn archaeologist embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping.â Is the only other place the landowner gets a mention- it does not expand ârights and responsibilitiesâ
These pipelines have ploughed through most counties over the last two decades unstoppably with a tiny bit of mitigation often applied post consent. I doubt that many landowners were aware of the results of the archaeological endeavours or that they had much chance to get to like the archaeologists until after the event (thankfully?) but at a county level these pipelines would have been a big issue
I maintain that they detest us probably with a passion and associate most of our work leading to further conditions being placed on their land. The recent COSMIC survey gave up trying to sample non scheduled monuments because of the unwillingness of landowners to let them on..... . I suggest that landowners control most of our remaining archaeology and as EH is so happy to point out are smashing it to bits with subsoiling. I think EH approached 47 of them and told them which areas we were interested in. The same land agents who advised their clients about hedge rows are still out there..oh it is a bleak Christmas
Hi beamo
I am not sure what the copyright is but could I suggest that the problem with the reality that you present is that it is very much after the event and pretty much object orientated- IFA codes and all that
âIf any landowner wants to have the finds from their land returned to them, then this is fine and they will be delivered ready packed and boxed.â If they were to follow it up and request the full related data and set fire to it- now that would be great?
Yes Pipeliner I am not sure where it is nor where it should originate or go?