10th February 2008, 12:02 PM
There have always been arguments about this. I think there are augments for and against temporal and geographic areas of competence.
If you a digging a Roman fort or a megalithic site throughout Europe generally there will be similarities where ever you are. In contrast digging an inter-tidal zone waterlogged settlement will be totally different to digging a site of the same period and type a few hundred metres away.
This kind of argument was used to bash consultants and competitive tendering arguing that local knowledge was vital. To a degree such local knowledge is important but the argument is it legal, worthwhile and practical to implement.
The second part of the argument is the final interpretation is done in post X and thus who needs this temporal & spatial knowledge, the surveyor, the digger, the supervisor, the director the osteo-archaeologist?
Some excavation tasks like surveying are the same where ever you are.
What is important are the correct skills and knowledge appropriate to the grade of the job being done in the place that is being done.
There is also the point how long will it take to gain this knowledge this knowledge.
If we look at the EU then any EU citizen has a right to work in any EU country. To move any from this basic right is going to cause difficulties.
The converse argument applies should foreigners be allowed to work in the UK?
I would in contrast point to the Dutch guidance on standards which is published in English to assist none Dutch archaeologists to work in Holland. Surely we should be discussing what training should be available to help people to work where they want in terms of British regions or countries and on what sort of archaeological site.
I have always thought that this notion of local knowledge being vital has been overplayed in order to try and protect intellectual fiefdoms. What we need is more freedom not more unworkable restrictions.
Peter Wardle
If you a digging a Roman fort or a megalithic site throughout Europe generally there will be similarities where ever you are. In contrast digging an inter-tidal zone waterlogged settlement will be totally different to digging a site of the same period and type a few hundred metres away.
This kind of argument was used to bash consultants and competitive tendering arguing that local knowledge was vital. To a degree such local knowledge is important but the argument is it legal, worthwhile and practical to implement.
The second part of the argument is the final interpretation is done in post X and thus who needs this temporal & spatial knowledge, the surveyor, the digger, the supervisor, the director the osteo-archaeologist?
Some excavation tasks like surveying are the same where ever you are.
What is important are the correct skills and knowledge appropriate to the grade of the job being done in the place that is being done.
There is also the point how long will it take to gain this knowledge this knowledge.
If we look at the EU then any EU citizen has a right to work in any EU country. To move any from this basic right is going to cause difficulties.
The converse argument applies should foreigners be allowed to work in the UK?
I would in contrast point to the Dutch guidance on standards which is published in English to assist none Dutch archaeologists to work in Holland. Surely we should be discussing what training should be available to help people to work where they want in terms of British regions or countries and on what sort of archaeological site.
I have always thought that this notion of local knowledge being vital has been overplayed in order to try and protect intellectual fiefdoms. What we need is more freedom not more unworkable restrictions.
Peter Wardle