Skip to main content

Archaeological laws in USA

 Archaeological laws in the USA

Archaeological sites contain important and irreplaceable information about the past. Unfortunately, climatic changes, development, vandalism, and looting destroy sites at an alarming rate. Site protection is not only the responsibility of law enforcement officials or archaeologists. The past belongs to everyone, and it is everyone’s responsibility to help protect and preserve it.

Laws

Laws in the United States on federal and state lands protect archaeological sites. People who violate these laws can be prosecuted. Laws pertaining to private lands distinguish between surface collecting (picking up objects laying on top of the ground) and any ground-disturbing activities, like digging for artifacts. Laws pertaining to state and federal lands do not distinguish between surface collecting and digging for artifacts. In other words, removing artifacts from state and federal lands is illegal.

Private Property

In the United States, it is legal to collect artifacts from private property if you have written permission from the landowner. Other requirements are dependent on the state. If you are interested in collecting or metal detecting on private property, contact your State Historic Preservation Office for more information.

It is illegal to disturb human skeletal remains or burials. It is also unlawful to receive, keep, own, or dispose of any human body part (including bones), knowing it to have been removed from a grave unlawfully.

State Laws

To surface collect, metal detect, or to legally dig on any state property, you should check the permitting requirements in your state. State property includes state parks, historic sites, wildlife management areas, and state forests. It also includes state highway rights-of way, navigable river and stream bottoms, and some coastlines. Your State Historic Preservation Office or Department of Natural Resources can direct you to more information.

Federal Laws

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law. This established the first broad legal protection of cultural and natural resources in the United States. Since then, there have been other legal successes for preservation on federal lands. The National Park Service provides an overview of federal historic preservation laws affecting federal archeology and preservation.

It is illegal to surface collect, metal detect, or dig on any federal lands without a federal permit. Federal lands include lakes and lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Land Management. It also includes U.S. Forests, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and military bases.

Ethics

In 1996, the SAA Executive Board adopted the Principles of Archaeological Ethics, as proposed by the SAA Ethics in Archaeology Committee. These principles guide archaeologists "in negotiating the complex responsibilities they have to archaeological resources, and to all who have an interest in these resources or are otherwise affected by archaeological practice" (Lynott and Wylie 1995:8).

The Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) maintains a list of archaeologists who have agreed to abide by its code and standards of professionalism. The Archaeological Ethics Database, maintained by RPA and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, includes a range of resources related to ethics in archaeology.

The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is an international organization that connects people from all around the world. WAC has adopted several Codes of Ethics. These codes concern the protection of indigenous cultural heritage around the world. They work toward establishing meaningful relationships with indigenous peoples and local communities and maintaining respect for human remains and sacred objects.

Metal Detecting

A metal detector user may be in violation of the law if artifacts are recovered during metal detecting. This also applies if archaeological sites are disturbed during metal detecting activities. Laws protect artifacts and archaeological sites on federal, state, and city-controlled properties. Archaeological resources on private property are also safeguarded by law (e.g. trespassing).

Violation of these laws carries serious consequences. These include the possibility of fines, jail time, and confiscation of the metal detector and other equipment used in the violation (such as vehicles). Other laws may apply including theft, destruction of property, vandalism, and driving in prohibited areas.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more