13th February 2008, 05:48 PM
I'm a British archaeologist working abroad, or at this stage, a Yorkshire lad working in Ireland (appen bejaysus).
Over the years Iâve moved back and forth between Britain and Ireland like a nun on the run. Working as a site assistant there, a site assistant here, a supervisor there, a supervisor here, a project officer there, a director here, building experience of both places whilst inadvertently researching my comprehensive guidebook: Bed and Breakfasts I have known and loved. What has struck me most about working as a commercial archaeologist in both countries are the differences â not just in terms of the archaeological sequence, but the differences in terms of how the archaeology is actually dug. Even the tools can be different; in Britain and Ireland two different types of shovel are used: a long handled âPaddy shovelâ and a short handled âBrit shovel'.
But thereâs a more profound difference apart from the tools. Letâs call it the Anglo-Irish disagreement: in essence, the presumption to âtotal archaeologyâ on the one hand and âsample archaeologyâ on the other. In Ireland all archaeology is treated as potentially unique, requiring 100% excavation and preservation by record. A committed legal framework underwrites all decisions that may potentially impact on the archaeological heritage, and any proposed development must be preceded by full excavation of all sites and features.
Itâs clear that in two neighboring localities, many similarities may exist in terms of the actual, physical remains of the past, but the âarchaeological recordâ can be âpreserved by recordâ in quite different ways depending on what side of a modern political border they are found. The idea that archaeology represents a universal truth is seductive, but one step away from saying that the spade doesn't lie (and everyone knows thats because they haven't learnt to talk yet).
Ours is a license based system regulating the market as a closed shop. Its not without issue, in particular the lack of accountability created by separating professional liability from commercial liability. Our publication record is disasterous, but improving. The benefits of the system are that in order to direct an archaeological project and carry the responsibility of that work to final publication, you must qualify a peer reviewed interview, and that will require examination on every aspect of Irish archaeology - something you can't really fake if you've just parachuted in. At any other level, fieldworkers are very welcome, and the benefits of our multi-national teams (where English is sometimes a minority language) can be a challenge, but on the whole beneficial.
I think this is a great thing, but of course, living here in the land of milk and honey I would say that wouldn't I?
Peter's point about quantifying the value of local knowledge in order to judge geographical competence is an interesting one. These things are deeply embedded in our taken-for-granteds. It's like learning another language to understand the limitations of your own.
Good forum this, I'm sure to be back! All the best.
Brendon
Over the years Iâve moved back and forth between Britain and Ireland like a nun on the run. Working as a site assistant there, a site assistant here, a supervisor there, a supervisor here, a project officer there, a director here, building experience of both places whilst inadvertently researching my comprehensive guidebook: Bed and Breakfasts I have known and loved. What has struck me most about working as a commercial archaeologist in both countries are the differences â not just in terms of the archaeological sequence, but the differences in terms of how the archaeology is actually dug. Even the tools can be different; in Britain and Ireland two different types of shovel are used: a long handled âPaddy shovelâ and a short handled âBrit shovel'.
But thereâs a more profound difference apart from the tools. Letâs call it the Anglo-Irish disagreement: in essence, the presumption to âtotal archaeologyâ on the one hand and âsample archaeologyâ on the other. In Ireland all archaeology is treated as potentially unique, requiring 100% excavation and preservation by record. A committed legal framework underwrites all decisions that may potentially impact on the archaeological heritage, and any proposed development must be preceded by full excavation of all sites and features.
Itâs clear that in two neighboring localities, many similarities may exist in terms of the actual, physical remains of the past, but the âarchaeological recordâ can be âpreserved by recordâ in quite different ways depending on what side of a modern political border they are found. The idea that archaeology represents a universal truth is seductive, but one step away from saying that the spade doesn't lie (and everyone knows thats because they haven't learnt to talk yet).
Ours is a license based system regulating the market as a closed shop. Its not without issue, in particular the lack of accountability created by separating professional liability from commercial liability. Our publication record is disasterous, but improving. The benefits of the system are that in order to direct an archaeological project and carry the responsibility of that work to final publication, you must qualify a peer reviewed interview, and that will require examination on every aspect of Irish archaeology - something you can't really fake if you've just parachuted in. At any other level, fieldworkers are very welcome, and the benefits of our multi-national teams (where English is sometimes a minority language) can be a challenge, but on the whole beneficial.
I think this is a great thing, but of course, living here in the land of milk and honey I would say that wouldn't I?
Peter's point about quantifying the value of local knowledge in order to judge geographical competence is an interesting one. These things are deeply embedded in our taken-for-granteds. It's like learning another language to understand the limitations of your own.
Good forum this, I'm sure to be back! All the best.
Brendon