13th February 2008, 08:16 PM
Interesting analogy.
I would argue that despite the difference in technique and tools (in Yorkshire of course you have navvies pick axea and miners pickaxes)the archaeology is similar and Irish archaeologist and British should be able to work in each others countries. It is a right under EU law. A norman castle is the same in England as is in Ireland or Viking urban deposits.
The licence procedure looks straight forward enough and not very onerous the issue is it neccessary. Why should there be any impediment to anybody working where they choose? I would argue that it is not a matter for the state to veto who a private sector company employs.
Equally when the Irish reviewed their system of archaeological protection about 10 years ago they ran a pan European tender competition. All the short listed firms were British (and knowledge of Irish arfchaeology was restricted to have you worked in Ireland).
Peter
I would argue that despite the difference in technique and tools (in Yorkshire of course you have navvies pick axea and miners pickaxes)the archaeology is similar and Irish archaeologist and British should be able to work in each others countries. It is a right under EU law. A norman castle is the same in England as is in Ireland or Viking urban deposits.
The licence procedure looks straight forward enough and not very onerous the issue is it neccessary. Why should there be any impediment to anybody working where they choose? I would argue that it is not a matter for the state to veto who a private sector company employs.
Equally when the Irish reviewed their system of archaeological protection about 10 years ago they ran a pan European tender competition. All the short listed firms were British (and knowledge of Irish arfchaeology was restricted to have you worked in Ireland).
Peter