Dear all,
The SHA summer newsletter has just arrived with me, and I am reading the
code of ethics and the dissent by Vergil Nobel and Daniel Roberts with
interest. Some of the terms used in this principle (6) and others, seem
odd, to my British English ears.
I am wondering what 'archaeological contexts' can mean - both building
archaeology contexts and contexts of archaeology of the recent past seem
to lie outside what is meant.
I am also wondering if 'finding out the insurance valuation' is excluded
from the meaning of 'establishing the commercial value'.
I _think_ I understand where this section is heading, but it runs
against the other codes of ethics I follow (the Museums Association and
the International Council of Museums), both of which recognise that
objects have a commercial value, and that there are therefore ethical
concerns which should be considered in engaging with the market in these
commodities (whether as seller or purchaser, or beneficiary - as, for
example, accepting sponsorship from an auction house). Principle 6 thus
seems to both be more rigorous, and less rigours than other codes - what
am I missing, here?
In Principle 7 the phrase 'compatible with resource protection' is used
- does the word 'resource' mean 'site of special archaeological
interest' (e.g. not revealing the location of a site during the
consultation/engagement/co-management, if it is thought to significantly
increase the risk of 'nighthawk' detector users plundering the site) or
does it mean 'time, money, etc.'
Best wishes to all,
Pat
(personally, I'm not a citizen, I'm a subject .... I can translate that
bit in my head!)
--
Pat Reynolds
[log in to unmask]
"It might look a bit messy now,
but just you come back in 500 years time"
(T. Pratchett)
|