Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I heard the oral exam is quite tough as well, with stuff along the lines of 'what would you do in a particular situation on a particular site', all a bit hard when its hypothetical.
Its a good idea, and I can think of plenty who would probably fail. But it would only work if everyone has to have licensed status. Be nice to have grades, too, rather than just overqualified site directors. I reckon everyone on site ought to be able to do those things.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
i know one poor soul was failed 7 times because they couldn't pass the finds part.
yep, it's the law here, it's the only way to make it work. Voluntary licencing would not work, it has to have a legal standing.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote: yep, it's the law here, it's the only way to make it work. Voluntary licencing would not work, it has to have a legal standing.
But what of the status of site workers in Ireland? Do they have to be licenced?. Is it compulsory that the 'licenced' director has to be on site all the time? I just wonder what the system is worth when it doesn't cover everyone involved. I mean is it possible for an unlicenced person to start a contracting unit, employ totally unlicenced staff (apart from the one director), go into administration leaving the licenced director with a site he or she is obliged to write up to satisfy the licence condition, but no funding to do it with? Or is that just a nightmare scenario, that could never happen. Where are the controls on regulating the 'trade' as opposed to the individual?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Ok, you have it there. The director is the only person on site who has to be licenced. Supervisors, assistants, g.o.'s are not required to be licenced. (Out of interest, how would you regulate that?)
And what you suggest is a nightmare scenario, which does happen, though quite rarely. The one thing I do stress is that there is almost always some form of preliminary report, it is generally the extended report incorporating full specialist findings which fall foul of the commercial pressures to keep digging.
As yet, it is the individual who is regulated, there is talk of transferring it to the company rather than the individual director to allow more flexibility in fulfilling the licence, (so that say if the director gets sick or for whatever reason cannot dig the site, another licenced archaeologist wihtin the company can take over the licence without the rigmarole which currently is needed). But what with Duchas being disbanded and the government being less than sympathetic to archaeology at the moment, it seems to have been put to the side for the moment, or at least, out of the public arena.
so to answer your question, there are no controls on the "trade" as such rather than the individual.
In my experience so far, the directors who are still directing after 5 years are still here because they are good at what they do, and do care enough about the archaeology and their own reputations to make sure that they do the best they can. it's not ideal, but in a survey carried out on incomplete licences the biggest culprit by far was in the research world, the Museum, not the commercial archeologists (though that's not saying that some of them don't have a bad track record either). The pressure put on commercial directors to keep digging means that by and large they do get reports in so they can keep getting their licences and keep earning money, and so the cycle continues.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
And thank you invisible, it is harder to think positively than just moaning about the problems, but if all we ever do is moan, and not come up with our own alternatives, no-one will ever take our complaints seriously. Definitely hope you had something stronger than a coffee!
