19th February 2007, 02:14 PM
I did discuss this with a Swedish archaeologist quite a number of years ago.
As far as I remember (and I may be mis-remembering), the system then was that any archaeological site was automatically given protected status as soon as it was discovered - even if that discovery took place during construction work. The protection was less than for a SAM in the UK, but more than for an SMR site.
That sounds pretty good in principle, but it also carries risks for the archaeology. By all accounts, there was a strong tendency for people to destroy archaeological remains as fast as they could, before they came to the attention of the authorities.
I would be very interested to hear from anyone with more reliable and up-to-date information.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
As far as I remember (and I may be mis-remembering), the system then was that any archaeological site was automatically given protected status as soon as it was discovered - even if that discovery took place during construction work. The protection was less than for a SAM in the UK, but more than for an SMR site.
That sounds pretty good in principle, but it also carries risks for the archaeology. By all accounts, there was a strong tendency for people to destroy archaeological remains as fast as they could, before they came to the attention of the authorities.
I would be very interested to hear from anyone with more reliable and up-to-date information.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished