A reply to
to the Position Statement
The English Heritage ‘Position
Statement’ on the Valletta
Convention, dated 18th July, 2001
is to some extent reassuring.
However considerable doubts must
remain.
1. The relationship to the London
Convention.
The Statement makes considerable
play of the similarity of Article
3 to earlier statements in the London
Convention of 1969. However this
misses the main point, that the
government failed to ratify the
valletta convention for 8 years,
and then did so suddenly in 2000.
To both questions we must ask Why?
The answer seems to be that objections
were raised to the valletta Convention.
In particular objections were raised
against Article 10 (which says that
National Museums - in our case the
British Museum - should not collect
material from ‘uncontrolled
finds’, i.e finds made in
the course of building), and also
article 3.
Now the status of the London convention
in those 8 years must be a matter
for constitutional lawyers, but
the layman’s belief is that
it was in abeyance.
The question that Chris Young
does not tackle, is why the government
suddenly decided to ratify it in
2000. Here the answer appears to
be that there was pressure from
the professional archaeological
organisations, and that they were
preparing the way for a sweeping
new law on the model of the French
and Italian and Irish laws. Our
protest have, we hope to some extent
prevented this, but vigilance will
remain necessary.
2 The Contradictions.
The fundamental contradiction
remains. The government said in
its written statement that:
…The Government does
not believe that additional legislation,
requiring a licensing system, is
necessary to fulfil Article 3. Much
archaeological work is already controlled
through existing mechanisms.
Yet Valletta says:
to ensure that excavations and
other potentially destructive techniques
are carried out only by qualified,
specially authorised persons.
With the best will in the world, one cannot but say that these two statements
are contradictory.
3. The Explanatory Notes.
There is a reference to the Explanatory Notes which accompany
the Convention which does not appear to correspond to the Notes
themselves.
Thus in regard to Metal Detecting, they say:
The Explanatory Notes however make it clear that a state party
can restrict this to finds of precious materials.
The Explanatory Notes actually say:
Article 3, paragraph iii, governs the obligation of Parties
to adopt the licensing or registration of the users of metal detectors.
Firstly, such obligation applies to the cases foreseen by domestic
law.
It is difficult to know what, if anything, the term 'cases
foreseen by domestic law' mean. Certainly this does not make
anything 'clear' and there is nothing about the restriction to
finds of precious materials.
4. The Code of Conduct.
The government statement also
went on:
There may be scope for developing a voluntary Code of Conduct
for those who wish to undertake archaeological work outside the
existing systems of control.
Fortunately, little more has
been heard of this: the Council
has put considerable effort into
trying to draw up such a Code, and
has come to the conclusion that
such a code will either be rigorous
and undesirably rigid, or it will
be vacuous. We suspect that the
government has done the same exercise,
and come to the same conclusion.
It remains our view that the strength of British archaeology
lies in its constant innovations, and constant adaptions to new
ideas and innovations. The worst form of excavation is that done
by rote, without considering the specific needs of site and strata,
and the best way of ensuring the highest standards is by constant
competition, and friendly rivalry. The restrictions that Valletta
seeks to impose are not the way forward.
|
