14th February 2008, 02:37 PM
As it happens, some years ago I was interviewed to qualify for Irish licenses and passed (although I had never worked in Ireland, and my knowledge of Irish archaeology was based solely on reading). My career then took a slighly different path, so I never actually took up an Irish license. However, my company does a fair bit of work in Ireland, and I have archaeological colleagues who are closely involved in that work, so I have a degree of familiarity with how it works there.
The Irish system certainly has some strengths that the UK system lacks, but it also has important weaknesses that I think would surprise many UK archaeologists. The key thing in relation to this thread, though, is that archaeologists at all levels seem to be able to move between the two countries without significant difficulty.
This contrasts with the approach taken by some advocates of the 'geographic areas of competence' approach in the UK. There are those who would like to see work given only to organisations based in the same county or city. That seems silly to me. Most of the relevant archaeological techniques etc are universally applicable.
However, what may be more relevant is the type of terrain an individual has experience of working in. Someone who had spent a career on plough-truncated rural sites might struggle with deeply stratified urban archaeology, and vice-versa. Upland archaeology can be quite different from lowland archaeology, which can be very different from wetland archaeology. These differences can change the techniques you apply, and may affect your ability to recognise archaeological features or excavate them appropriately.
So, I would be inclined to look not at organisations but at individuals, and consider before appointing someone to a responsible site-based post whether they appear to have a suitable level of experience on similar terrain.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
The Irish system certainly has some strengths that the UK system lacks, but it also has important weaknesses that I think would surprise many UK archaeologists. The key thing in relation to this thread, though, is that archaeologists at all levels seem to be able to move between the two countries without significant difficulty.
This contrasts with the approach taken by some advocates of the 'geographic areas of competence' approach in the UK. There are those who would like to see work given only to organisations based in the same county or city. That seems silly to me. Most of the relevant archaeological techniques etc are universally applicable.
However, what may be more relevant is the type of terrain an individual has experience of working in. Someone who had spent a career on plough-truncated rural sites might struggle with deeply stratified urban archaeology, and vice-versa. Upland archaeology can be quite different from lowland archaeology, which can be very different from wetland archaeology. These differences can change the techniques you apply, and may affect your ability to recognise archaeological features or excavate them appropriately.
So, I would be inclined to look not at organisations but at individuals, and consider before appointing someone to a responsible site-based post whether they appear to have a suitable level of experience on similar terrain.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished