No wonder they donated anonymously, what an insane law.
By contrast, where I live in Philadelphia, developers are not required to perform any archaeological studies before excavating - even along the Delaware River waterfront, where the oldest European settlements are, as well as countless indigenous sites.
Sometimes, before history gets scraped away and sent to the dump, bottle diggers will excavate the trash pits, typically discarding anything that's not 100% intact, and selling the 18th and 19th century bottles on eBay or at flea markets. However, like the axe heads in the article, these artifacts are absent context, removing nearly all historical value. And of course, the stratification of the pits they're extracted from is also destroyed, further reducing the ability to interpret any finds that might otherwise have been saved.
It's only projects paid for by our federal government that are required to do archaeological studies, and when they do, it's not uncommon to find early colonial artifacts, but also remnants of pre-contact Lenni-Lenape sites.
You only really get one shot at recovering history through archaeology. That doesn't mean that preservation holds permanent veto over progress, but a little bit of disincentivization can go a long way in the study of history.
If the builder is compensated for the costs associated with working around the fonds, plus a little extra, they will be happy to report everything they find.
I'd throw in making museums obliged to display which builder company found the item when displaying it.
This probably costs a lot more than the average government wants to spend on archeology though.
Or worse, hold up the construction of a motorway for a decade and lead to its eventual re-routing at the cost of millions.
As for your Wikipedia link, it's a good idea to actually read the whole text in it.
Between the museum, the prospector, and the government, this is a stacked prisoner dilemma game; not worth playing.
However, this law can be interpreted from many angles, as it is difficult to define what is archaeological or not. There are certain associations which defend “leisure detection” as long as it is not located on a registered archaeological or historical site. But their point of view is not shared by archaeologists, who consider that any place can be considered an archaeological site, relegating leisure detection to fine sandy beaches.
In this context, case law says that there are no completely accidental archaeological discoveries with a metal detector.
>The letter stated that the axe-heads were discovered in County Westmeath using a metal detector.
>The museum explained those "severe penalties" are in place because unauthorised metal detecting can cause "serious damage to Ireland’s archaeological heritage
Good luck with that.
If that's the case they've repeatedly committed a crime and shown clear understanding they're breaking the law.
Most things of value are going to be archeological. If you want gold you do panning.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amateur-treasure-h...
And would likely be considered important archeologically.
TL;DR finds of over 2 grams have to be given to the state (you might get it back).
I believe the term, here is "hoist with his own petard," to quote an Englishman (or Dane) of some repute.
If it's on private land and you have permission from the landowner, you don't need the license. You still need to report any treasure or archaeological finds to National Museums NI though.