Quote:
Originally Posted by Farotz View Post
I find your observations on the Irish situation quite interesting.
I'd just like you to know that the statutory regime of archaeology of several European countries (e.g. the Netherlands, France, Italy, Greece and Cyprus), not only Scandinavian, is in many respects stronger and more effective than the Irish one.
Could you elaborate somewhat on this Farotz. Admittedly I made a somewhat catch all generalisation, but the more positive points about the Irish system are:

A "polluter pays" system which provides funding for the excavation of up to 100% of a site considered archaeologically significant.

A broad relatively generous definition of archaeological significance, extending into the postmedieval/early modern period and later, rather than a narrow chronological definition of what is considered archaeologically significant. Note the excavation of nineteenth century settlements on recent road projects.

Full open area excavation of archaeological sites affected by development.

How does this situation compare with Cyprus, Greece or Italy? What percentage of archaeological sites are excavated, how do they define archaeological significance and who pays?