23rd January 2006, 02:54 PM
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!
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!