Search results

1

Metodyka badań archeologii sądowej – archeolog na miejscu przestępstwa

100%

Borkowski T., Trzciński M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2017

|

issue 2

109-126

PL

Tekst omawia zasadnicze problemy dotyczące archeologii sądowej. Autorzy zwracają uwagę na szereg uwarunkowań formalnoprawnych, które regulują wzajemne relacje pomiędzy archeologiem a organami procesowymi (przede wszystkim prokuraturą i policją), wskazując na konieczność wypracowania „dobrych praktyk”. Zdobyte doświadczenie zawodowe pozwala również autorom odnieść się krytycznie do metodologii stosowanej w archeologii sądowej. Przy tej okazji autorzy przypominają o specyfice archeologii sądowej w Polsce, która ukierunkowana jest obecnie przede wszystkim na sprawy związane z badaniami zbrodni przeciwko pokojowi, ludzkości i przestępstw wojennych, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem zbrodni komunistycznych. Rodzima archeologia sądowa różni się od zadań, jakie stawia się przed tą dyscypliną w krajach zachodnioeuropejskich, gdzie metody archeologiczne wykorzystywane są przede wszystkim do poszukiwania ofiar zabójstw oraz ukrytych przedmiotów pochodzących z przestępstwa, jak też do prowadzenia oględzin na miejscach katastrof masowych.

EN

This text discusses major issues connected with forensic archaeology. The authors draw attention to a number of formal and legal conditions which regulate mutual relations between archaeologists and judicial bodies (in particular the prosecutor’s office and the ), pointing to the need to develop “good practices”. Also, their professional experience allows the authors criticise methodology used in forensic archaeology. On this occasion, the authors remind of the specific nature of forensic archaeology in Poland, whose current focus is mainly on matters connected with investigating crimes against peace, humanity, and war crimes, with particular focus on communist crimes. Polish forensic archaeology differs from the tasks which this discipline needs to face in Western European countries, where archaeological methods are used primarily to search for murder victims and crime-related hidden objects, as well as to perform visual inspection on mass disaster scenes.

2

Kilka uwag o zwalczaniu przestępczości przeciwko zabytkom archeologicznym

100%

Sabaciński M., Trzciński M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2009

|

issue 3

67-76

EN

The article is devoted to selected issues in combating and preventing crime against archaeological heritage. The authors [»resent basic legal [»revisions determining archaeological relics and define the term “crime that is related to them. Whilst describing basic activities of state institutions within the scope of combating this tvpe of crime, the authors commence a discussion on insufficient staffing among police monument coordinators. Most controversial examples of prosecuting attorneys errors are mentioned in the discussion on certain procedural problems which appeared in the course of conduct of penal procedures known to the authors. The issue of participation of archaeologists and museum employees in illegal trade in archaeological relics “in good faith is also discussed; moreover, the authors describe the problem related to the absence of efficient solutions with respect to trade in archaeological relics from illegal excavation sites outside of Poland. The article is completed with a summary of combating crime against archaeological relics and a conclusion that Poland still misses proper determination and, more importantly, proper evaluation of this type of crime and awareness of the importance of the problem. Negative effects of criminal activities are overlooked or marginalized; it should be remembered that such activities generate nonrenewable losses.

3

Zakaz fotografowania w regulaminie muzeum – komentarz do Wyroku Sądu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów z dnia 5 maja 2010 roku

100%

Drela M., Trzciński M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2009

|

issue 4

83-89

EN

In the middle of 2009, the Regional Court in Warsaw (Court of Competition and Consumer Protection) received a petition to recognise provisions of the model agreement as prohibited. The plaintiff claimed that the provisions of [tar. 8 of the Regulations lor use of exhibited museum items used by the Września Children Regional Museum in Września, reading as follows: “Photographing and filming of exhibits and exhibition rooms is prohibited without the permission of the director of the museum. Photographing is possible after such permission is obtained and a fee is paid”, should be deemed prohibited. The Court recognised the provisions of the model agreement as prohibited and ruled that the provisions of the model agreement with the content quoted above must not be used by the Września Children Regional Museum in Września in transactions with consumers. The essential aim of the article is to determine legal consequences of the decision being discussed and the entering of the provisions concerned into the Register of Prohibited Clauses by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. The authors of the article give answers to frequently asked questions concerning the impact of the entry in the Register of Prohibited Clauses on the validity of similar provisions used in regulations of other museums. It is important here that, although the said decision was issued according to the procedure for abstractive control of provisions of the regulations of the museum and refers only to the regulation which is the object of proceedings before the regional court, its impact affects the interpretation of the provisions about abusive clauses carried out in other potential similar cases. In this context, it is important that if other museums make use of any provisions identical to the provisions of par. 8 of the Regulations of the Września Children Regional Museum in Września that were recognised as prohibited in the decision referred to above, such identical provisions cannot be automatically regarded as prohibited (abusive).

4

Drodzy Czytelnicy!

100%

Trzciński M., Wrzosek J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2017

|

issue 2

3-4

EN

With this issue of “Ochrona Zabytków” we wish to honour the memory of the recently deceased Professor Leszek Kajzer, one of the most outstanding scholars and a pioneer of historical archaeology in Poland, for many years a member of Program Council of the National Heritage Board of Poland. The latest times have been the subject of interest of Polish archaeology only since recently. Even though the first research work concerning contemporary times was undertaken in the late 1960s, it played a marginal role, with the prevailing body of research focusing on a period spanning from prehistorical times to the Middle Ages and, with time, also on the early modern era. The situation changed drastically due to systemic transformations of 1989 and the related investment boom. Rescue archaeological excavations preceding the construction of gas pipelines, national roads and buildings in historic city centres quickly revealed, on a previously unprecedented scale, different types of objects roughly dating back to a period from the first half of the 19th century to 1945. Apart from items attributable to armed conflicts, there were also remains of once existing villages, manors, cemeteries or farm buildings. Initially, material artefacts of this type caused a lot of trouble to archaeologists. Insufficient background and historical knowledge made it difficult for researchers to determine whether objects examined by them should be classified as archaeological artefacts or not. At present, i.e. in the second decade of the 21st century, the situation seems to have stabilized to a certain extent. The items most often documented during rescue surveys that accompany the construction of national roads and controlled-access highways include, for example, settlement relics or traces of both world wars. A similar situation exists in cities, where more recent periods increasingly attract the interest of archaeologists, even though there are still many controversial conservation-related and legal issues connected with these archaeologically unexplored areas. It seems that changes to perceptions of contemporary archaeology are determined not only by archaeologists themselves. In a sense, social expectations have an effect on these perceptions, too. As a result, the new specializations that have emerged in archaeology of the most recent past include the archaeology of armed conflicts in the broadest sense of the term or narrowly specialized forensic archaeology, which are of great assistance to law enforcement and judicial authorities. Without any doubt, the dynamic development of research on the most recent history of Poland has also contributed to these changes. Realizing that not all problems have been solved and that archaeology of the contemporary past is only beginning to be noticed by archaeologists, we think that it is essential to publish as many research results as possible. And some of these results are being published, as evidenced by the recent publications. In our opinion, there is still an insufficient number of theoretical texts that would look into certain methodological or conservation-related issues. Trying to satisfy these needs, in October 2016 the National Heritage Board of Poland and the University of Wroclaw organized a conference entitled “Archaeology of the contemporary past”. One of the outcomes of that event is this publication. It presents, in a slightly modified and extended form, some of the topics discussed in Wroclaw. We have selected these and not the other articles so as to provide an insight into theoretical and problem-based approach, focusing on methodological reflections rather than on case studies. We hope that the presented volume will contribute to further development of archaeology of the contemporary past and that it will foster the debate on the most important issues pertaining to this branch of archaeology.

Refine search results

4 Ochrona Zabytków

4 Trzciński M.

1 Borkowski T.

1 Drela M.

1 Sabaciński M.

1 Wrzosek J.

2 2017

1 2011

1 2010

Metodyka badań archeologii sądowej – archeolog na miejscu przestępstwa

Kilka uwag o zwalczaniu przestępczości przeciwko zabytkom archeologicznym

Zakaz fotografowania w regulaminie muzeum – komentarz do Wyroku Sądu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów z dnia 5 maja 2010 roku

Drodzy Czytelnicy!