Revised IfA Code of Conduct published.. with ammendments

[Oxbeast]

@Steven: yes, but this code covers all activities of its members, not just activities covered by planning or PPS5. So this would have to cover academic/volunteer/community sites as well. I do agree that ploughsoil is a context, its just a disturbed contex

[Dirty Boy]

I would imagine that it would only apply to someone or a company primarily engaged in selling artefacts and therefore aimed at the ebay / black market in antiquities that the UK seems to be a clearing house for at the moment. Can't imagine it would apply to museums, etc.

Landowners are free to sell their own property, but there may be a question over whether you can sell it on their own behalf.

Seems to be a badly worded phrase more than anything else.

If they're intending to have this apply to a museum, then I'd expect some form of official guideline as opposed to a small section in the code of conduct with no defining information.

Topsoil? Would expect it to be an archaeological context, although a disturbed one as Oxbeast says. Never really discovered anything earthshaking in it, although that shouldn't mean that there isn't and is ignored

[Jack]

Topsoil? Would expect it to be an archaeological context, although a disturbed one as Oxbeast says. Never really discovered anything earthshaking in it, although that shouldn't mean that there isn't and is ignored

Yep think about flint. In some places flint assemblages only exist in the topsoil as the ancient ground surfaces have been ploughed out. They are regarded as a valuable resource.

[Steven]

the code, pps5 or lpas through town and country ignore rights of landownership and are without support in statute which basically makes any statements about the creation or deposit of archive at what ever stage of its creation foundless. The primary principle of the ifa- the archaeologist shall adhere to the highest (sic) standards of ethical behaviour in conduct of archaeological affairs doesnt mean anything and nor does anything that calls its self a subsequent rule.

Hi
I think opinion is divided on the PPS and LPa's powers on this issue......between you and the rest of the world! If an LPA places a condition on planning permission that condition is a legal requirement unless overturned at appeal. 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.

[BAJR]

So.. (and this is my point I think). this would mean that the topsoil, being more than just 001 in the context register.. it would have to be excavated, rather than machined off. I have a fair idea where this comes from... and would also like to ask, does this new code also apply in SCotland, as the PAS don't yet have any activity in Scotland, it would be hard for them to approve work in Scotland... and of course... what does this mean... that the PAS involvement makes it ok... were if a professional archaeologist is involved its not ok??? baffled..

[oldgirl]

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 (is that within AUP - probably should've checked - please feel free to edit.)

[Sparky]

We're back to pirates again.

Not sure if any self respecting modern-day buccaneer / salvor would bother themselves with being affiliated with the IfA. Wouldn't have thought their standards are up to much.

[GnomeKing]

There is definitely information to be gained from the topsoil/subsoil (and other substrates) often removed in search of the 'Natural',( from whence the excavation 'proper' can begin) - in the past i have bemoaned the loss of artefactual evidence from stripped soils, where only ephemeral/unusually deep prehistoric features survive after stripping...

There is nearly always some useful observation to be made by considering the nature of current top/sub soils in their landscape context, subtle through it may be - some sites or parts of sites have an enormous about to tell, once the 'soil landscape' can be read - i have seen sites/parts of sites nearly ruined by a dull mentality that 'archaeology begins in the (clean) natural'.

Fieldwalking and test pitting are not used enough in commercial situations (especially in regard of lithics) where the archaeology would massivley benifit - it is far to easy to simply strip away 'overburden' in a deeply unreflexive way - i can think of several occasions where i have observed (and prevented) less informed archaeologists from stripping away multiple horizons of non contemporary sub-soils/buried soils etc, where clear archaeological relevance can be later, and painfully, demonstrated...

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

i am sure i am not completetly alone in this belief and perhapes an action group could compile some technical evidence and information?...

[trainedchimp]

(all this excludes Treasure Finds of course).

why 'of course'?

[Jack]

.......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

i am sure i am not completetly alone in this belief and perhapes an action group could compile some technical evidence and information?...

In my experience, on most sites, the sub-soils and topsoil are replaced after construction, resulting in very little loss of information. However I do take your point on some sites where it isn't.
On a commercial project, its about mitigating damage or destruction of information. Mitigation starts with preservation in situ, then moves onto preservation by record, the sample resucued is dictated by impact and the significance of what is impacted upon.
Hence, for a pipeline or road cutting across say a section of a field boundary ditch a 10% or 20% sample is sufficient, but 100% of a burial feature is appropriate.

I'd imagine for most (not all) soil/sub-soil profiles on most jobs, the construction damage is minimal compared to the size of the evidence, hence it has a very low priority compared to any aechaeological remins beneath.
This is why they are normally machined off.
However, some soil profiles do hold valuable information, so in this case (in my experience) sample sections are often recorded, sampled and examined by an expert

I wouldn't agree that on most sites that valuable information is being lost by stripping topsoil by machine. Although I don't know the specifics of the examples you mean