Licences?

[Illuminated]

That system does sound good in theory, though stories of low standards of work, rushed jobs and poor treatment of staff (and archaeology) from Ireland are common. I'll admit this is hearsay - i've not worked in Ireland myself, but from talking to people who have, standards vary widely. It would seem even if you can come up with what you should do at the interview, you could get away with a lot in the field standards wise. Good to hear things are getting tougher though!

I'd be in favour of some sort of licensing or charterd profession here myself,though apparantly it takes a lot of work to get a royal charter - mentioned elsewhere on these boards - I don't understand the ins and outs

I'm of the view I would put my name to a petition / raise my hand in a vote for any plan for change that involved some sort of defined professional status for archaeologists in the UK.

[BAJR Host]

But in Ireland.... who is responsible to check contrat work... scuse my ignorance... are there curators/DC archaeologists in every area?

Another day another WSI?

[Fishslice]

Overall the responsibility for enforcing standards lies with the DOEHLG and the NMI. They issue the licence afterall. The DOEHLG also has archaeologists responsible for counties (more often 2 or 3 counties). These archaeologists will do monitoring (in the UK sense) usually on larger excavations. Both DOEHLG and NMI review reports and requirements for post excavation and make recommendations.

In the past archaeologist have been asked for ?explanations? with regard to poor practice (perceived or otherwise) or have had restrictions place on their licence (usually for non publication). Have heard hearsay (not the band) about licences being revoked.

While I agree that standards vary (and they most certainly do - mainly for the reasons outlined by Illuminated) applied properly (twice a day until the itch dies down as my old MO used to say) a licensing procedure offers a system where standards can be enforced and, if necessary sanctions taken. In the UK licence are needed certain kinds of wildlife/ecological work why not archaeology?

[Sparky]

The Irish system is very good in theory and although in practice it has its faults (i.e. monitoring; the work methods of individuals and units are probably as variable in the UK as in ROI) I would certainly back such a system in the UK. Perhaps this is the set of teeth the IFA have been waiting for!? If the IFA didn't have clout in a similar system what clout would they have? Of course, I would imagine that a government representative body should be party (loosely EH, CADW, HS).But if, for beaucratic or political reasons, the IFA could not be a monitor in a licence system how would they exist? Who else would monitor the process?
Is there an equivalent of the IFA in Eire?

[troll]

I`m a supporter of the license system.Yes-I agree that there are problems and yes-muppetry still slips through the net.What really does fire me with enthusiasm is simply this: where crass incompetence is encountered-licenses can be removed and the finite resource does`nt have to suffer from the ubiquitous "idiot with trowel/keyboard" and more letters after their name than neurons firing in the skull. I remember fondly an occasion when a couple of my colleagues in a consultancy arrogantly felt that they would breeze the Irish License application so that they could tender for a finacially rewarding contract.They were back on English soil very quickly.Having worked with these managers on many occasions, I would`nt license them to wipe their own arse.Nice one Ireland-never before had I seen arrogance and incompetence poked so effectively in the eye!Made my millennium.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[historic building]

My understanding of the Irish system is that there is nothing to stop you working as a consultant; it is only those who are actually managing the excavation who need licences.

Once person monitoring work in three counties sounds almost as understaffed as the Inspectorate teams at English Heritage and they are just dealing with Scheduled Monuments.

[Fishslice]

It is true you can still practice as a consultant without a licence. However licences are not only required for those directing excavations, you would also have to hold a licence to undertake monitoring (the term used in Ireland for a watching brief). Licences are required for any form of prospection including geophysics and metal detecting.

Would agree that that planning arm of the National Monuments section is understaffed. However, on large infrastructure developments Codes of Practices are in place (roads, gas, electricity, quarries, forestry) with the Government and these developer. The codes place obligations on the on both parties with regard to archaeology, including the employment of a Project Archaeologists. Such posts are often full time and (in the case of roads) though the County Council(For roads there are currently 14 project archaeologists and 8 assistants). While this is no substitute for full government funding and resourcing of planning archaeologists (on Local or National level), the very fact that there is some form of management of archaeology of large schemes from pre-planning to post excavation can only be positive. While not perfect such codes have addressed some of the concerns of both parties and should be seen as basis for continued dialogue.

The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland is sort of like the IFA. Can't comment as I am not a member
http://www.instituteofarchaeologistsofireland.ie/

How be eligibility be decided and who could issue or monitor (in UK sense) the system?

[DaisyIrl]

The irish licence system does have its flaws but it ensures standard levels of academic qualification and experience for all site directors.
All applicants sit a licence interview which requires a thorough knowledge of irish archaeological best practice, standards and current research - months of studying and pfererably an article or two published must lead up to any successful interview.
My problem with the process is that anyone good at studying material and spitting it back out verbally as well as artefact recognition will be granted a licence. There is NO requirement for practical proof of the ability to manage a site, recognise features on the ground or form correct interpretations from the evidence. Applicants do need to have a minimum of 6 mths supervisory experience but generally this is more like two years before a licence is granted / applied for.
All the same no follow-up site visits to newly licenced directors take place by the licencing authority. The employer takes good care of newbies and checks that they are getting on ok but i know of a (tiny) number of people who have slipped through the net and are better off not running a site. Occasionally these include old hats who only needed a letter from their professor to get a licence and have never been retrospectively tested or checked since the new giudelines and requirements have been introduced.
Considering the huge amount of total excavation taking place in Ireland at present these are a very miniscule proportion of directors. 99.9% (at a guess!!)of directors are professional, competent, (occasionally still)enthusiastic and more than qualified to do their jobs to high standards. As for the 0.01 % complaints have resulted in licences being suspended pending investigation.
A similar regulated system may work well in other countries, especially in cases where a favourite gets given the job regardless of competence. The number of failsafes in ireland at least ensure that complimenting your way to the top is not possible!

[Tile man]

Probably pertinant to the desirability or practicality of lisences in UK archaeology is the campaign against Valetta, for example
http://www.cix.co.uk/~archaeology/cia/valetta/index.htm

[the invisible man]

Ah yes, the CIA, basically the mouthpiece of a certain individual who likes to rant in a popolar archaeology magazine, and who whipped up a lot of frenzy about Valetta.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.