2 ms·

So sounds like the same as in the UK, but instead of the tax payer subsidising the development, the developer is expected to pay for the archaeological work sin

So sounds like the same as in the UK, but instead of the tax payer subsidising the development, the developer is expected to pay for the archaeological work since they're benefiting from the commercial development. I don't know if you've got the funny idea that these commercial archaeology companies dig up the artefacts... and then own them? That's not the case. It's the same as for you in Romania, just the archeologists are a professional service, not civil servants.

Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
Though I think the UK has slightly different rules on who owns antiquities (and of course they differ between the constituent countries of the UK). In England, only certain items (essentially those which have a significant precious metal content, plus prehistoric metal items) are classified as Treasure and belong to the Crown. Other antiquities are by default the property of the landowner to dispose of as they see fit, though metal detectorists and others searching for antiquities usually have an agreement with the landowner about sharing the finds or the proceeds of sale. For instance, the Crosby Garrett Helmet [0] was sold at auction to a private buyer based in the UK for over £2M, which was split between the finder and the landowner. Scotland has a broader definition of treasure that would almost certainly have included the helmet. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_Garrett_Helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_Garrett_Helmet