Archaeologists Discover Viking Age Ship Burial in Norway
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
If you're a private citizen doing minor things to your own land then the government will cover the archeological survey[1].
However if the owner of the land is a commercial entity or you're making larger changes, the owner has to pay. And it can get quite expensive, as this couple found out when [2] they wanted to build a new barn and had to pay $70k for the archeological digs.
It even affects the counties themselves[3], as the money goes to the central government.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/fryktar-kulturminne-gar-tapt-gru...
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/bonder-ma-ut-med-700.000-kroner-...
[3]: https://www.nrk.no/nordland/kulturminner-gir-millionregning-...
Something like "must list the find in <central location> and give interested parties <some reasonable set of options in some reasonable timeframe for investigating and possibly excavating>" seems like it would serve the interest of history/science much better.
There's also a law that if you own a sufficiently large forest you need to hire a "forest manager" which, in part, has to survey the forest for potential endangered or protected species and similar.
Of course if the manager finds an area where some rare flower or bird lives then that area has to be preserved, and so you get a similar incentive where the land owner prefers managers with poor eyesight.
There are quite harsh penalties for destroying artifacts etc but yeah, I'd rather take that risk than financial ruin.
It really varies by jurisdiction. It is common in many european countries to have government-run archaeological services that pay for work on residential property, and charge companies at cost (as noted in a prior comment). In north america it is more commercial, and is generally associated with construction and contractor work, with lowest bids winning contracts. This is all traced through zoning records, and is factored into land taxes. Big companies tend to prefer to have all their ducks in a row, since its actually a highly competitive market and costs tend to be pretty low, keeping in perspective the revenue that will eventually be generated. Fines tend to be quite high for companies that neglect to do proper investigation, though arguably not high enough. But if it is on a residential property then there is literally no reason to not undertake archaeological investigation if the government will pay for it.
Also you're missing the fact that this occurs in multiple phases, with thresholds for work of varying intensity (these thresholds are often arbitrary and nonsensical, to appease land developers, who hold lots of power on the process, depending on jurisdiction). For example, a surface survey that yields considerable results would move onto a test trench phase (literally a few 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 m holes) and if that yields considerable results then you move onto even more extensive results. If human remains are found, then all bets are off and a really intense excavation occurs. Generally speaking, it's not a zero sum game.
There are certainly egregious cases where sites are knowingly destroyed. For instance, when rio tinto destroyed a 46,000 year old site in australia. There were consequences, but this only demonstrates the need for even more regulation, not less. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911866159/a-mining-company-bl...
Moreover, most archaeological sites are not secured. There is no room in the budget for that, unless the state sets aside funds for that kind of thing (very rare, though Norway might be a notable exception)