14th February 2008, 04:55 PM
I would agree with that. I think its important to start by saying Iâm reading all this as relating to âpeople in significant positions of responsibilityâ. I had no experience of wetland archaeology before coming here to Ireland, but now have a semi-permanent dose of trench foot for several months of the year. My experience of urban archaeology on the other hand is almost exclusively derived from the UK. Motorways tend to bypass the urban sprawl, and thatâs the kind of work Iâm most involved in.
Perhaps geographical areas of competency should be reconsidered instead as landscapes of competency. In contrary to Peterâs point that Viking urban deposits will be the same in Ireland as in Britain, I would say that an awareness of the specifics of that kind of archaeology allows us to see the nuanced differences between the two, just as it is to walk down the streets of York and Dublin today.
There is a more general point being raised in regard to market regulation, and the barrier to entry that geographical areas of competency would create. The licence system is a âgeographical area of competencyâ based on the individual. The licence holders act like gate-keepers, taking out written contracts with the State that come what may, we will see those projects through from cradle to grave. This is professional regulation without commercial regulation (in your face EU employment directives!) that creates an internal market of supply and demand. There are far too few licensed directors for all the work, and companies can only expand by accumulating more licence holders. In our company of 75 permanent and 200 temporary staff, 15 of us are licence holders. Of all those people, less than a quarter will be Irish. It doesnât inhibit their ability to do their job, and very few would have ambition to become licensed directors, although there is every potential for advancement.
I am firmly of the opinion that competition is good, and only giving work to organisations based in the same area will not ensure quality. But of course there is another barrier to entry and that is capital. Capital decides âwho has the right to work whereâ long before the state gets involved. For very large infrastructural developments, only multiregional organisations could even consider bankrolling such large undertakings without going to the wall. Archaeology is a business created by legislation, provided as a service to customers who perceive no stake-holding in the final product beyond discharging legal requirements in time and on budget. If left unbridled, the commercial imperative will drive down cost and this will inevitably impact quality. Regulation is essential.
Perhaps geographical areas of competency should be reconsidered instead as landscapes of competency. In contrary to Peterâs point that Viking urban deposits will be the same in Ireland as in Britain, I would say that an awareness of the specifics of that kind of archaeology allows us to see the nuanced differences between the two, just as it is to walk down the streets of York and Dublin today.
There is a more general point being raised in regard to market regulation, and the barrier to entry that geographical areas of competency would create. The licence system is a âgeographical area of competencyâ based on the individual. The licence holders act like gate-keepers, taking out written contracts with the State that come what may, we will see those projects through from cradle to grave. This is professional regulation without commercial regulation (in your face EU employment directives!) that creates an internal market of supply and demand. There are far too few licensed directors for all the work, and companies can only expand by accumulating more licence holders. In our company of 75 permanent and 200 temporary staff, 15 of us are licence holders. Of all those people, less than a quarter will be Irish. It doesnât inhibit their ability to do their job, and very few would have ambition to become licensed directors, although there is every potential for advancement.
I am firmly of the opinion that competition is good, and only giving work to organisations based in the same area will not ensure quality. But of course there is another barrier to entry and that is capital. Capital decides âwho has the right to work whereâ long before the state gets involved. For very large infrastructural developments, only multiregional organisations could even consider bankrolling such large undertakings without going to the wall. Archaeology is a business created by legislation, provided as a service to customers who perceive no stake-holding in the final product beyond discharging legal requirements in time and on budget. If left unbridled, the commercial imperative will drive down cost and this will inevitably impact quality. Regulation is essential.
