>Personally I do not see how this new legislation adversely affects
>British Archaeology. As long as the legislation is applied as it was
>presumably intended, there is nothing to stop local organisations,
>interested amateurs or anyone else getting involved, as long as they
>take proper advice before commencing.
The problem is not how Britain interpetes Article 3 now, but what may happen
in the future. The usual progress with such agreements is first to agree
words such as 'qualified specially authorise persons' and leave each country
to interprete it as it will. Then at a later date to come back for a second
bite of the cherry when a common agreement on precisely what 'qualified
specially authorised person' means is sought.
As many of the other signatories to the convention already have highly
restrictive definitions of what such people are - and it certainly does not
include amateurs- there will considerable pressure on the UK to agree to a
European wide definition that would put paid to amateur archaeology in this
I have not looked at the CIA site and can have no opinion on the views they
express as I have not read them. Neither am I opposed to some form of
quality control on archaeological investigations in this country. Indeed
having suffered the frustration of trying to get crucial information from
long-unwritten excavations I share many peoples concerns about the conduct
of some professionals and amateurs
However I am opposed to Article 3 not for how it is applied in the UK now
but how the UK may be forced to apply it in the future. That is where the
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.