Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments

[BAJR]

ummm, I have to say that I didn't read this as aimed at metal detecting rallies - I read this as aimed at people involved in (for example) assisting in identifying wreck sites with gold on board

um... yes noticed that too... nuff said as you say...

I am strongly in favour of more rigours approach to top-soil/sub-soil investigation/removal - for example sometimes really very inexperienced people are put in charge of machine watching, and many managers/PO's etc are not well versed in pedology and geomorphology....equally so for curators...this impacts negatively on primary stages of some site investigation and machine stripping...effectively put severe restrictions on some classes of evidence

Absolutely... ... it is a missing part of teh whole.

[BAJR]

Can I also ask what happens in Scotland? Perhaps the Scottish section of the IfA would care to comment. As there is a requirement to get PAS sanction (hmmmm let me think what PAS projects would these be) and certain groups in Scotland regularly work with detectorists... do they have to get permission from PAS? One also wonders why this change was required? Was it becoming a serious issue? I could think of other places to put time and effort... and this one is not really it. So what does it do? Does it ensure that no IfA member can record at a Rally? Would this new ammendment allow a member to be disciplined? Was the previous version not good enough to discipline those who would now be in breach? Now that we have Plough soil defined as archaeological context and the strong arguement for pre evaluation trenching investigation of this level... will we see a change in the methodology. Will Scotland be an exception? so many questions... any answers?:face-huh:

[Dinosaur]

Solves Dirty Boy's worries about running out of archaeology, we can go back and trowel our way through all the topsoil :face-approve:

[Sparky]

Nothing wrong with checking top-spoil bunds

[brazier]

Yes agree about flint. And don't forget that article published years ago about machine-stripping versus hand-digging, can't remember offhand its title.

Not so much inexperienced people in charge of stripping away vast volumes of potentially highly informative past landscape profiles of erosive, alluvial, colluvial - and bioturbative - nature which may protect or expose buried soils etc; more a case of lack of time....?, and what a "non-site" could usefully tell you if there aren't any obvious fills+cuts and goodies in them to worry about archiving (but the catch!: you won't necessarily know that until you've hit "natural" - since your eval may or may not inform your predictive model depending on your sample size and the type of distribution you're assuming).

Are soil samples not for sale too....?

[GnomeKing]

lack of time on "highly informative past landscapes" = lack of experience/knowledge of managers/tender writers...and commercial undercutting...

[the invisible man]

[quote=BAJR] As there is a requirement to get PAS sanction QUOTE]

It doesn't seem to be a requirement: a note appended to the clause appears to say that members MAY work with a PAS "approved" project i.e. it is not forbidden..

[Jack]

I'm sorry. I seem to missing something here. Are people really suggesting removing topsoil and subsoils by hand here?!!
What regionally significant information does machining them off destroy?

[Steven]

why 'of course'?

Hi
Because treasure finds are covered by the Treasure Act, the procedures of which must be followed by law, so treasure should not be included in any pre-excavation agreement of ownership of the archive.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]As inspectors (and successive Secretarys of State) have found again and agian for the right of an LPA to place such a condition (with all its subsequent costs and requirements) on permissions it has legal status.

[/SIZE]

Are there any examples on matters archaeological?