Archaeological legislation (original) (raw)
This paper reviews the development of archaeological legislation in Botswana, with specifi c interest in how integration of archaeological issues in other pieces of legislation has facilitated the growth of archaeological legislation. With its fi rst statute, in the form of a proclamation, towards protection of archaeological resources in 1911, Botswana continued to revise its archaeological legislation until 2001. This paper argues that the review of a piece of legislation from time to time (growth through time), is indicative of advancement in the operations of any fi eld. The growth through time allows for refi ning defi nitions, broadening the scope of the discipline or profession, and embracing other emerging issues worthy of consideration. It is also in most cases a necessary endeavor in response to satisfying basic requirements of the rule of law. This includes the need for clarity, precision, and transparency among other things. This paper further purports that while this growth through time is fundamental to any legislation, it is also imperative that legislation grows through integration into other pieces of legislation. This facilitates integration of the discipline/fi eld and the profession into other legal and policy apparatus. The integration does not only provide context within which archaeological resources can be protected, but also ensures sustainability as implementation of other pieces of legislation may directly or indirectly nurture the archaeological agenda.
2002
Local authorities are identified as playing a significant role in historic heritage management at the local level. The aim of this thesis was to determine whether local authorities are in a position to be given greater responsibility for historic heritage and particularly archaeological resource management. This thesis presents a discussion of the historical development of legislative provisions for the management and protection of historic heritage. Archaeological information is considered imperative for appropriate local authority management of archaeological resources, this thesis assesses the current state of archaeological information available to local authorities. In order to determine the role local authorities currently play, a questionnaire survey was designed to procure an understanding of what planners perceived their councils responsibility was and how they were actively managing historic heritage. To acquire an appreciation of the actual practice of historic heritage m...
Excavating Archaeology On Regulating Heritage, ‘Black’ and ‘White’ Archaeology
The world is in a state of flux, where that that seems to speak for itself is no longer so: all is up for grabs; everything demands reconsideration. Old certainties have lost their validity and we have to get to grips with new uncertainties. This state of anxiety also relates to how we trust institutions such as the state. We turn to the state for guidance and demand from it to take action to preserve a sense of security. Criminal law, or penal law, is an instrument to which one easily turns to ‘achieve’ this sense of security. Indeed, criminal law is used as an instrument to effect change and manipulate behaviour repressively (rather than using it as a measure of last resort). The measures pertaining to fighting terrorist threat is illustrative but also other measures such as camera surveillance, area restrictions, stop-and-search actions in centres of leisure, etc. are illustrations of the instrumental repressive use of criminal law. But does it work? What do we gain? What do we lose? Considering the protection of archaeological heritage and its exploration I sense a similar demand: regulation through a variety of legal instruments to preserve the heritage as well as to preserve, or so it seems, the monopoly upon heritage preservation. So the solution is easy: repressive action through criminalisation, effected by a proper organisational back-up of inspectors, police and administration. It will be sold well, politically, considering the goal: preservation of the physical past combined with the need to re-establish national identities throughout Europe. In this lecture, I seek to ask some fundamental questions, about law and, as far as my knowledge goes, about archaeology. Taking the Valetta convention as a guiding line (as well as Dutch legal measures), I wish to explore: 1. The worth and function of preserving archaeological objects and the political, scientific, cultural and social significance of these objects; 2. The role of the state and the professional body of archaeologist in respect of the political, scientific, cultural and social significance; 3. Legal instruments to regulate archaeology, physical heritage and excavation, with a special emphasis on the role of criminal law; and 4. Alternative ways of thinking that could be explored to redefine the first aspect and to develop alternative instruments of regulation and control.
Vesnik of Yanka Kupala State University of Grodno. Series 4. Jurisprudence. 2017 №2.P.98-107.pdf, 2017
The analysis of legislation on protection of archaeological heritage of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) from 1992 to 2017 is put in the basis of the offered article. The author studied the legislation directly in these countries, having visited each of them with a view of detection of features of legal regulation of archaeological heritage. In the introduction the analysis of international agreements is concluded within the framework of UNESCO and the CIS for the protection of cultural property. The main part outlines the contents of the legislative acts adopted in 11 states of the CIS. It is noted that the archaeological heritage in comparison with other categories of objects of historical and cultural heritage has a lower degree of protection from the effects of natural (natural and temporal factors) and anthropogenic (urban development, earthworks) character. Therefore the international experience can be very valuable. The statistical data characterizing the state and the number registered in the state register of monuments of archaeology are analyzed. In the conclusion it is proved the necessity of introduction in educational institutions the new legal discipline of legal protection of historical and cultural heritage. The article is recommended to specialists in the field of protection of historical and cultural heritage. The conclusions and recommendations can be used to improve legislation of the R epublic of Belarus. Keywords: archaeological heritage, cultural values, national legislation, international law, model law.
Implementing the Antiquities Act: A Survey of Archeological Permits 1906-1935
2003
Chapter 1: Introduction Public archeology in the United States received a long-sought and hard won legislative boost for antiquities protection in 1906. On June 8, 1906, a federal law, an Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (16 U. S. C. 431-433) was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt after several arduous decades of dedicated attention to the issue. Better known as the Antiquities Act, its enactment responded to a growing concern over the issues of looting and vandalism of American archeological resources. Proponents of the Act's passage intended to provide appropriate mechanisms to halt the plundering of antiquities and destruction of archeological sites, which was pronounced in the southwestern United States. Additionally, supporters envisioned a statute to shelter irreplaceable archeological deposits, ancient architectural ruins, and natural resources from destruction or pillage by homesteaders, curious tourists, and pothunters increasingly known to frequent the American West (Lee 1970/2001; Rothman 1989: 12; Thompson 2000a). The Antiquities Act initiated a federal system and infrastructure to protect American antiquities on public land, regulate public archeological activities, and punish malefactors known to have disturbed ancient sites and ruins. By declaring antiquities, scientific objects, and places as public sources of education, scientific information, and/or commemorative value, the Antiquities Act established fundamental policies for the treatment of cultural resources that influenced archeology and historic preservation throughout the twentieth century (McManamon 1996, 2001). The law empowered the President to establish protected reserves of public land, referred to as national monuments, by simple proclamation without congressional action. Additionally, it regulated all excavations, investigations, or removals of objects of antiquity from public land. Potential investigators were required to apply for and be issued a permit that validated their studies. Supporters hoped the passage of antiquities protection legislation would provide a mechanism through which the Federal government could prosecute and punish those who violated the Act's provisions. This study explores two aspects of the Antiquities Act's impact on public archeology between the Act's passage and 1935. The first is a consideration of the many administrative developments within the Department of the Interior required to implement the Act. During this twenty-eight year period, the Department of the Interior developed a permit system for the review and issuance of applications; the National Park Service was created; new functions, such as the Department Archeologist, were established; and other challenges that arose were addressed. Secondly, this survey explores some of the projects undertaken by the earliest Antiquities Act permit recipients, and discusses some of the troubles that plagued field and federal archeologists throughout the initial third of the twentieth century. The research and analysis here reflects the contents of only one archival collection, albeit a large one, of Antiquities Act permits records from the period 1907-1935. The permit data reviewed for this project and discussed in the text that follows are derived from an archival holding of Department of the Interior documents now housed at the National Archives Records Administration II (NARA II), located in College Park, Maryland. The collection consisted of 338 permits issued by the Department of the Interior between 1907 and 1935 as well as copious amounts of associated correspondence. The data documented and discussed in this report provide a presentation of the initial scientific archeological and palaeontological excavation projects approved by the Department of the Interior with hopes of enhancing knowledge of ancient America. Records of additional Antiquities Act permits issued by the Department of the Interior during these years may be located in other facilities. Other collections and depositories may contain additional permits that could result in further findings. Several permits, for instance, are mentioned in the different editions of the Annual Report of the Department of the Interior, but I was unable to locate the permit records in the archives. Similarly, departmental queries and documents within this collection also shed light upon several permits I had no success in finding or documenting while conducting my research at the archives with the primary source data. Permit requirements included an obligation to provide proper long-term care for collections in a public facility. As the preservation and presentation of cultural artifacts and scenic wonders for the visiting public were gaining importance both with archeologists and the American people, the remaining vestiges of the past were to be used to benefit the country as a whole, not merely wealthy collectors. The threat of penalties, including jail imprisonment and a $500 fine, were anticipated to be a deterrent to non-scientific excavation of antiquities on federal land holdings. Developing a Permit System Administrative records associated with the Antiquities Act permits reflect the permit application process. Individual researchers, normally an associated member of a nationally recognized public institution, were required to submit a permit application to the appropriate federal land managing department, Agriculture, Interior, or War. The required informaiton for permit application is described in the Act's rules and regulations (43 CFR 3). According to a Departmental letter from 1909, permits were required for "examinations, excavations, and gathering taking place on public lands, Indian reservations, National Monuments within public lands and Indian lands, National Parks, etc.. ." (Pierce 1909). All applicants were required to provide the name of trained field workers' formal affiliation with a public institution, and a location where the collection would be properly housed, studied, and eventually publicly displayed. Additionally, a specific description of the research site was to be plotted on a sketch map, and a realistic scope of work for the field season(s) was to be suggested for all projects. The first permit issued under these procedures was to Edgar Lee Hewett, on behalf of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1907. Figure 1 shows Hewett's application seeking the initial Antiquities Act permit. Section 3 of the Antiquities Act (16 U. S. C. 431-433) expressed the need for a process to monitor and regulate archeological investigations and artifact collection on public lands, stating: That permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archeological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity upon the lands under the respective jurisdictions may be granted by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and War to institutions which they may deem properly qualified to conduct such examination, excavation, or gathering subject to such rules and regulations as they may prescribe: Provided, that the examinations, excavations, and gatherings are undertaken for the benefit of reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, with a view to increasing the knowledge of such objects, and that the gathering shall be made for permanent preservation in public museums. The idea for a permit system gained momentum in years prior to the statute's passage. The Rev. Henry Mason Baum, one of the most active lobbyists for antiquities protection at the turn of the century, clearly mentions the idea for federally issued permits as early as 1904. In Records of the Past, a journal dedicated to reporting the preservation of antiquities worldwide, Baum declared: Of course, we should welcome the scientific men of foreign countries to investigate our prehistoric monuments and ruins and permit them to retain some of the archaeological treasures recovered, but it should be done under government permits and supervision [emphasis added], and a record should be left of their work and whatever they are permitted to take back with them (Baum 1904: 100). In March, the same year, the federal permit concept was introduced, in draft form, into the Congressional consideration as bill H. R. 13349, by Representative W. A. Rodenberg from Illinois (Lee 1970/2001: 44). Several additional drafts and bills were considered later, until the Act, with its permit provision, passed in 1906. The permit applications examined in this study were submitted to the Secretary of the Interior's office. These applications were reviewed at the Secretary's office and then submitted for collaborative approval to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the permits were also submitted by the Secretary's Office to the General Land Office (GLO), a branch of the Department of the Interior established in 1912 to "superintend, execute and perform all such acts and things touching or respecting the public land of the United States." Additional responsibilities of the GLO included disposing of public land and overseeing the withdrawal from availability for homesteading land of cultural significance as a step towards prior to formal preservation (Lee 1970/2001; Townsend 1999). In most cases, if adequate information was provided in the initial application by a recognized expert and public institution, the application was approved. A permit issued by the Secretary, upon recommendation by the Smithsonian Institution, and other relevant Department bureaus and offices resulted. If requests to excavate did not interfere with the work of other research institutions, project approvals materialized via a departmentally issued letter that reiterated the information provided
The meaning of 1970 for the acquisition of archaeological objects
Journal of Field Archaeology, 2013
Many museum and professional associations, particularly in the United States, have adopted a 1970 standard for the acquisition of archaeological materials-that is, in recognition of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, archaeological objects should be documented has outside of their country of origin before 1970 or have been exported legally after 1970. This article explores the extent to which this standard has been adopted, its influence on restitutions and claims for restitution of archaeological objects, and the policies that this standard attempts to promote.
Weakening of the Legislation Regarding Archaeological Conservation Sites for Development Projects
As of the end of 2015, there are 13.947 archaeological conservation sites, 267 urban conservation sites, 159 historic conservation sites, 32 urban-archaeological conservation sites and 77 mixed conservation sites, in Turkey. 358 of these sites overlap with natural conservation sites (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, statistics of conservation sites in Turkey according to their degrees). Building regulations for conservation sites, vary- ing among different types of sites, are being weakened by various legislative interventions under the influence of Turkey’s land–, real estate– and construction-based political economy of recent years. The theme of this pa- per is the process of weakening building regulations that safeguard archaeological conservation sites, as part of the above-mentioned process. Discussed more specifically is the amendment of an article (with the addition of paragraph ‘g’) in Principle Decision no. 658 on the Regulations for Conservation and Use of Archaeological Conservation Sites, which creates the risk of enabling development in 1st and 2nd degree archaeological con- servation sites through ‘temporary works’, with the excuse of public safety and natural disasters.