The impact and significance of legislation on archaeological heritage: Ireland and Denmark discussed.

A paper presented at the EAA conference 2012, Helsinki, at the round table talk of the Committee on Archaeological Legislation and Organization.

The writer has some 12 years of experience working mainly in commercial/preventive archaeology, the majority of that time having been spent in Ireland. For the past five years however, he has worked in Denmark, on the Metro City-Ring project in Copenhagen, for the Museum of Copenhagen.

Note: In the context of this paper, the term ‘Irish’ refers only to the Republic of Ireland. The legislation in Northern Ireland is entirely separate from that in the Republic of Ireland, and will not be discussed here.

Introduction

Archaeological legislation lays the framework within which archaeologists must operate, and forms the basis for the protection of archaeological material within any given state. In essence, it sets the stage on which the struggle for balance between development and archaeology is played out. It is clear that the strength of the legislation and the manner in which it is interpreted, enforced and overseen, dictates to what extent our past is seen as significant. It also defines – in a very real way – to what extent we are able to protect and preserve it, or document, excavate, interpret and publish it, in a manner befitting its importance.

As Denmark and the Republic of Ireland are similar size countries, both operating within the EU, and facing relatively similar heritage challenges, it is surely valid to compare the mechanisms surrounding heritage protection in either state. The aim is not to take an overtly negative stance in relation to either system, but to tease out where improvements might be made. While it would be interesting to go into great detail discussing the evolution of the heritage laws in both countries, it is not really possible in a paper of this scope to go into the minutiae.

It is perhaps enough to begin by stating that in both instances the legislation has changed in stages in response to changing times, be that increased levels of agriculture, industry, or large-scale infrastructural developments. In some cases key crises have been the trigger for changes in the law.

Key Events

Ireland

1930 National Monuments Act – provided for the protection of national monuments, and archaeological objects within the state.

1954, 1987, 1994, 2004 National Monuments (Amendment) Act – various additions and alterations to the original act. Dealt with (for example) use of metal detectors, ownership of archaeological objects, increases in scale of penalties. Reflected increase in development led excavations.

2013 The Irish National Monuments Acts (1930-2004), which is comprised of the 1930 Act and its four subsequent amendments, is soon to be

replaced by a completely new act, which aims to streamline and improve the current legislation.

Denmark

1958 New museums legislation. Saw decentralisation of archaeological practice.

1969 Archaeological sites were protected by law.

2001 New Museum Act. Saw Denmark move closer to the position outlined in the Valetta Convention.

2013 Amendments made to the Museums Law, mainly in relation to finance related issues.

The Irish Situation

In Ireland, the Wood Quay incident in the late 1970's certainly had long term consequences. In this instance a huge part of Viking Dublin was removed to make way for a new home for Dublin's City Corporation. Only as a result of some huge public rallies and protests, and the great efforts of many interested people, a portion at least of the site was properly recorded and excavated. This was a serious eye opener, and brought about a realisation that Ireland’s heritage could easily be lost to development if steps were not taken to protect it. It made it clear that the existing legislation (National Monuments Act, 1930-1954), did not go far enough, and was no longer severe enough to act as a real deterrent to the destruction of the archaeological heritage in the latter part of the twentieth century, prompting legislative change in 1987 (Gowen, 2013, p. 153-166). Further amendments were introduced in 1994 and 2004.

The heritage legislation in Ireland can be seen as having generally been reactive, rather than proactive, responding to crises as they occurred rather than anticipating them. It was also in the aftermath of Wood Quay that commercial rescue or preventive excavation took its first tentative steps in Ireland. There were in fact no legal impediments to consultancies carrying out excavations providing they followed the appropriate procedures, and so they gradually became more prominent through the 1980s and 1990s, partially due to a steady increase in development and development-led excavations, and partially as a result of reforms in the planning and heritage legislation; alterations which again were made in response to various crises (Gowen, 2012, p 158-9). Today, all preventive excavation in Ireland is carried out by consultancies, with universities and other institutions carrying out research excavations on their own initiative, under license from the National Monuments. Consultancies, while generally carrying out good quality work, are of course set up to make a profit. This commercial-based approach could result in compromised standards, were there not certain checks and balances in place.

In Ireland, ever since the National Monuments Act of 1930 it has been the law that only a licensed archaeologist, as approved by the state, could carry out an archaeological excavation (Gowen, 2012, p. 160). This means that an archaeologist must satisfy the National Monuments Service and National Museum of Ireland that they have the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skill and experience to lead an excavation. In the modern era the archaeologist must produce a method statement outlining how the excavation will be conducted, and thereafter the site can be inspected by representatives of the state bodies to ensure that the work is being carried out in the proper way. As part of the conditions of carrying out an excavation, the archaeologist is responsible for producing a final report of good standard, and also the results should be published. While in theory the responsibility lies with the excavation license holder, in practice the consultancy in question

takes on the responsibility with them. This system acts as a good balance to commercial archaeology, as it demands that certain standards are consistently met or licences can be revoked. Effectively, it keeps commercial archaeology on a leash, and functions as a form of state based quality control.

Valetta,1992 – Polluter Pays

The key moment that produced a legislative response across most of Europe was the Valetta Convention in 1992, which would see countries respond in their own way and in their own time to adopt the principal of ‘Polluter Pays’ into the realm of archaeology (Council of Europe, 1992). Two years after in 1994, Ireland amended its National Monuments Act, and in tandem with new Planning Laws moved toward the new European position, signing up to Valetta in 1997.

In Denmark, the Consolidated Museum's Law of 2001 brought in the 'Polluter Pays' system, and the Danish Agency for Culture (Kulturstyrelsen) was formed out of the existing institution Rigsantikvarens Arkaeologiske Sekretariat (it was known as KUAS until 2012). The Danish Agency for Culture has the role of regulator. Denmark officially ratified the Valetta Convention in 2006.

The Danish Situation

In 1958, as part of a new heritage law, some local museums in Denmark were given responsibilities previously held by the National Museum, including excavation responsibilities (Høst-Madsen and Harnow, 2012 p. 42). From 1974 only the regional museums carried out excavations, and that is still the case today. These museums are state-subsidised, and state approved. Nowadays they bill the developer for the work they carry out – it had been paid for by the state up until 2001, except for situations where the developer was a public body, such as a local council (kommune) who would then be obliged to pay (Høst-Madsen and Harnow, 2012 p.43). A maximum budget for the excavation is pre-approved by the Cultural Heritage Agency of Denmark (KUAS, reorganised into the Danish Agency for Cuture since 2012), both to ensure that the proper required work is carried out to an appropriate standard, and also to ensure that the price is fair (Vander Linden and Webley, 2012 p. 3, Mikkelsen, 2012 p.120). This in effect is the Danish equivalent of the tender stage that is generally used in countries where commercial companies carry out excavations. A key point to mention is that the museums must be financially viable, but they are not supposed to return a profit based on their excavation work. Also, an initial assessment or pre-investigation linked to a small-scale development (less than 5,000 m2), will in fact be paid for by the local museum with archaeological responsibility, and so is effectively a service that the museums provide free of charge (Vander Linden and Webley, 2012 p3). This is not the case within medieval urban areas however, where the developer pays regardless of site size.

In 2009 an international evaluation was initiated by the Danish Agency for Culture, which found that the Danish local museum system was a rather unique and effective system, but that the practice of excavation lacked research strategies (also a recognised issue in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe), and subsequent research was insufficient (Høst-Madsen and Harnow, 2012 p.43). A ministerial review in 2011 found that the museum standard overall was in need of improvement, with a need for a greater level of professionalism. Some of the 40 or so museums with an archaeological role spread across the country were extremely small-scale, and struggled to achieve the same quality as some of the larger museums. One element in addressing this issue is to be a reduction in the number of museums with archaeological responsibilities, with some smaller museums to merge together into larger more efficient organisations (KUAS, 2011 p.25-27). Already the number of museums with

archaeological responsibilities has been reduced somewhat, as some museums have decided to merge together in anticipation of the process, which is to be completed in early 2013.

From planning application to archaeological investigation – some key differences

In the Danish planning system, the local museum has the sole responsibility of deciding when a planning application might require an archaeological investigation. Every planning application that goes to the local council (kommune) is also sent to the local museum, and the museum must decide which developments require attention. That said, a developer is not obliged to allow a pre-investigation, and an archaeological investigation is not legally required until such point as archaeological material has been encountered. Generally though, the archaeologists will be involved by the developer from an early stage.

In the Irish system, all planning applications are sent to the local county council, who will in turn send all relevant applications to the planning section of the National Monuments Service of Ireland. They assess what recommendations to make (larger developments which are subject to EU directives on environmental impact assessments will automatically be recommended for an archaeological assessment). The National Monuments Service provide advice to the Local Authorities, which can be taken into consideration when setting the planning conditions. If an archaeological recommendation is made, it should then become part of the planning conditions, which the developer must fulfil in order to proceed (Gowen, 2012 p. 160). Therefore they will be required to employ a suitably qualified archaeologist, and at this point they can choose to hire any archaeological consultancy or licensed archaeologist. That archaeologist will then act on the conditions set down by the National Monuments Section, be that to carry out a desk based assessment, carry out a test excavation, or to be present for all topsoil stripping in case archaeology is encountered. Full excavation may result from the assessment, testing or monitoring, or in some cases it may be an initial requirement. In order to carry out this work, the archaeologist must apply for a licence to the National Monuments of Ireland (and also the National Museum), who are entitled to object if they feel the archaeologist is not being thorough enough, or indeed too thorough. These various stages involving local planners and the National Monuments Service, keep the hired archaeologist at a remove from the key decisions as to when an excavation etc is required.

This is a fundamentally different approach to the Danish system, where the same museum that makes the recommendations as to what work is required, will then subsequently carry out that work. This could be seen as a potential conflict of interest, at least from a developer’s point of view. There are two mitigating circumstances though – the fact that the Agency for Culture approve all the work from a neutral standpoint (from budgets to field work to report standard), and the non-commercial nature of the museums. A further potential conflict of interest in the Danish system could occur when a local museum carries out work in connection with a development being undertaken by its own kommune (local council), as of course the museum already has financial and organisational ties with the kommune (Mikkelsen, 2012 p. 120).

A Comparative Assessment

At a practical level – as each area of Denmark is covered by just one archaeological museum, it means that there is no competition in the market. This could mean that (a) a developer has little choice in what they will pay, and (b) the museum has no professional competition, and so might not feel pressure to maintain high standards, except to satisfy the minimum level that the heritage agency will accept. On the plus side, a Danish museum is not driven to maximise profits in the same way as a privately operated consultancy, and the Agency for

Culture oversees the pricing of jobs from a neutral standpoint, and therefore the pricing of jobs should be consistent and fair. Also, the developer can object to the Agency for Culture if they consider the price to be unreasonable, and the budget only comes into effect when the developer officially approves it. How this system compares in reality to the outcome of consultancies trying to undercut each other with streamlined tenders, would be very difficult to establish without an in depth examination of the wider economic picture, though it would certainly be intriguing to know.

As mentioned above, in the Irish system consultancies compete for work. This keeps prices competitive for developers, and keeps consultancies on their toes. It could mean lower standards due to cost-cutting measures, but due to Ireland’s archaeological structure as outlined earlier, this has generally not been the case. Instead it has tended to result in stream-lined, efficient companies, driven to perform well by their competitors. Unfortunately, the increased competition to win tenders caused by the financial collapse has seen something of a ‘race to the bottom’, as consultancies are desperate to win contracts and stay in business. There is a general feeling that the past few years have seen standards slip, as survival has become the overriding objective for most consultancies.

While much might be made of what could be termed a difference between ‘socialist’ or state controlled and ‘capitalist’ or commercial approaches, in the end this difference in itself is less significant in a day to day way than might be expected, as indeed is reflected generally across Europe (Vander Linden and Webley, 2012, p. 1) and it is the instead the interpretations of the legislation and the chosen organisational frameworks that vary the most.

There are those who may view commercial or contract archaeology with scepticism. However, in a system that operates properly, it has many good points. Thanks in part to the legislation and systems in place, and in part to the fact that archaeologists tend to be passionate about what they do, commercial archaeology seems to work well in the Irish context. It has developed into a highly professional and streamlined business. And ultimately, there need be no issue with an archaeological consultancy seeking to make a reasonable profit. It means that consultancies will generally be run efficiently, as at management level profit is a primary concern. This means competitive pricing, which is good for the client. Having a budget-driven manager can also mean that there will be a person or persons within the consultancy that are well suited to dealing with the issues and personalities encountered while dealing with developers and other parties involved with large construction projects.

Winners and Losers

Unfortunately, in Ireland the average archaeologist tends to be the loser. As profit margins tighten, wages are the easiest expense to reduce, and therefore the conditions of employment and salaries stay rather low, and have dropped considerably in recent years as a result of the financial meltdown. This coupled with the smaller scale work now being carried out (there are few major infrastructural projects being carried out at present, meaning that contracts are often very short), makes it a very difficult time to be an archaeologist in Ireland. Many highly experienced archaeologists lack continuous employment, a career structure, or indeed in many cases any employment at all. In 2013 efforts are being made by a large group of archaeologists to lobby the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (the professional representative body) to pressure consultancies into recognising established pay rate minimums for archaeologists at each level. In the meantime, many of the more experienced archaeologists are for practical reasons often

unable to take the very short term contracts being offered. Instead recent graduates tend to be more flexible and willing to work in these circumstances. While this will to a degree benefit those in need of experience, it means that a divide is occurring within the workforce, with a new generation of younger archaeologists somewhat disconnected from those who they should perhaps be benefitting by learning from.

In Denmark, the developer is perhaps the loser. They have to foot the bill for excavation without the benefit of competition in the archaeological market, though of course with museums not seeking to make a profit, this problem is lessened. In Ireland, the developer can choose who will carry out the work, and will employ a competitive, relatively cheap consultancy, the one that offers the best price.

In Denmark, the archaeologist is treated comparatively well, both in terms of salary and work conditions generally, though there has perhaps not been the same proliferation of work as in Ireland. Recently however, with projects like the Metro City-Ring project in Copenhagen and the proposed bridge to Germany in southern Denmark, that has also changed, and it has recently been a good time to be an archaeologist in Denmark.

A potential benefit of the regional museum system in Denmark is the fact that those working long-term for a given institution will become familiar with, and have good local knowledge of their region and its archaeological background. Consultancies tend to take on work wherever it arises, and so may lack local knowledge of soils, geology and regional site types – though arguably in countries the size of Ireland or Denmark, this may not be a significant issue. In the Republic of Ireland the lack of local authority archaeologists means that there can be a lack of professional archaeological input ‘on the ground’. While the National Monuments Service and National Museum of Ireland do their best to comment on archaeological matters, it is often down to local archaeological societies or private archaeological consultants to keep an eye on developments within their area, in a more informal way.

A positive for the developer in the Danish system is an entitlement to a free (desk-based) assessment of the risk of encountering archaeology within a proposed development (Roland, 2012). Furthermore, where a development is less than 5,000 m2 in area, the developer is also entitled to a free assessment of the site itself, including test-trenches (except as stated previously, within a medieval urban centre). This assessment is legally binding; if the museum states that a site has no archaeological potential (based on either a desk-based or test-trench based assessment), in the event that archaeologically significant material is encountered the museum must then pay the excavation costs itself.

In the Irish system, the developer is always liable for the archaeological costs associated with its development. This extends even to private individuals building their own homes, if archaeological material should be encountered (or is even considered likely to be present) they must pay the full cost of any archaeological work carried out, including a desk-based assessment or testing – even in the event that the results should be negative.

In Denmark, museum-based archaeology is very clearly seen as an academic profession, with qualifications given real respect. In most museums, there are few if any casual archaeologists, only fully qualified archaeologists, or student archaeologists getting experience. In that sense, the discipline has perhaps a greater respect for itself in Denmark – it values itself more. Perhaps as a result of the commercial nature of Irish archaeology, it has often been the case that at entry level little weight is given to one’s qualifications, they tend to matter more as one’s career goes on. It has been quite common for people with no

archaeological qualifications other than experience to work as field archaeologists, alongside and frequently on an equal footing to those with degrees. In some ways this is a real leveller, as these ‘unqualified’ people are often very good, but it can lead people to wonder why they bothered to study for years. Ireland certainly can learn something from Denmark in this respect, with more recognition of the value of qualifications.

What about the archaeology?

In both Denmark and Ireland legislation has given heritage a great deal of protection for many decades, albeit it mostly related to visible archaeology to begin with. Even before Valetta, and certainly in the years since, the legislation has improved to the point that heritage is legally well protected. The legislation in both countries, partially as a result of Valetta, is quite similar in many ways, the major difference relating to the organisational structure and the role of commercialism.

In Ireland, the entire system is centralised at the National Museum and the National Monuments Service. This means all excavations must be licensed by these agencies, and all excavation reports and archives are centralised with the museum, as are all artefacts within a national registration system. This is an easy to follow, stream-lined system, where standards need to be equal across the country. Indeed a number of state publications over the years have helped to establish best practice in excavation and related archaeological work (for example Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation and Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage http://www.archaeology.ie/PublicationsFormsLegislation/#d.en.13271). In Denmark, while all excavation reports are registered and kept at the Danish Agency for Culture, the local museum element means practices and standards can vary to a greater degree, where perhaps a greater standardisation would be beneficial (the reduction of museum numbers will address this to a degree).

The licensing system in Ireland is also a positive, ensuring that those who take on the role of excavation leader/director should be suitable for the task, and cannot shy away from the responsibility they have taken on.

Common Problems and Solutions

Despite using two quite different approaches to dealing with development-led archaeology, there are nonetheless a number of issues that are common to both systems. The consequences of the Valetta Convention in both countries have overall been positive, with a wealth of previously unknown archaeological sites excavated and documented in advance of development, contributing significantly to our knowledge of the past. It is worth remembering though, that the aim in both countries is the preservation of archaeological material/sites in situ as the preferred option. The reality however is that this seldom happens, with so-called ‘preservation by record’ being the norm. Rightly or wrongly this suggests that in both Denmark and Ireland the costs associated with development-led archaeological excavation are not prohibitive, and it is only infrequently that a development is significantly altered or abandoned on archaeological grounds.

It seems that overall the Irish and Danish systems both work well enough as regards the excavation stage, but both fall down somewhat thereafter. In Denmark, museums are not allowed to bill the developer for research associated with the excavation, instead the developer funds the documentation and recording of the excavation only. In neither country is there any compulsion on the developer to pay for publication of the material. While state-

based organisations in Ireland such as the National Roads Authority are generally happy enough to fund such publications, it would be extremely unusual for a private developer to do the same. So, while the cost of recording and excavating the impacted archaeology is seen as a legitimate part of the developer’s construction costs in both countries, the same is not true of the proper contextualisation or dissemination of the knowledge gained in the process. In effect, a lot of new information has and is being gained, but is not resulting in much new accessible knowledge, which makes the entire process somewhat futile.

Indeed insufficient publication and dissemination of the knowledge gained from development-led archaeology is a major issue internationally today. In Ireland this problem fuelled the idea (for a time at least) that contract archaeology carried out less valid work, or work of a poorer standard than the academic institutions. This issue lingered, perhaps in part due to the incessant pace of development in the 1990s and 2000s in particular. It was, as Margaret Gowen – director of one of the largest Irish archaeological consultancies throughout the boom – describes, ‘a hectic, market driven and cost-competitive environment, with very limited mandatory requirements in place’ (Gowen, 2013, p. 153-166).

In the Republic of Ireland, post-excavation specialist work varies in quality and form with no formally agreed standards set down. Also, specialist work is not adequately built into the tendering and licensing process. While large projects such as road developments have the financial scope for extensive associated specialist work, other developers sometimes refuse to pay the subsequent costs resulting from an excavation once in the ‘off-site’ phase. For them, the physical ‘problem’ has been removed, and it becomes less clear for them why they are liable for further costs. Furthermore, a failure to submit a fully contextualised final report is not technically seen as a breach of the developer’s commitments.

There is no formal link in the Irish licensing system between the individual excavation director (license holder), the archaeological consultancy and the developer, and consequently there is sometimes a failure to complete projects. This issue (along with several other shortcomings of the Irish archaeological system including the lack of research strategies) was addressed in a study published in 2006, Archaeology 2020: Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge Society (Reeners, 2006). This was based on a two year long study carried out by the School of Archaeology, University College Dublin and published together with the Heritage Council. Unfortunately, despite systematically identifying weaknesses in the system and proposing solutions, few of these improvements have been implemented to date.

The aim in both countries is surely to increase our understanding of the past, and at least in a piecemeal way that is happening. However, an increased focus on this goal, with research strategies and publication in mind, is to be recommended. Situations such as in Ireland where the National Roads Authority have proactively engaged with their archaeological responsibilities should be seen as positive. This engagement has resulted in many seminars and publications at a range of levels, and is surely a step in the right direction.

The lack of research strategies in Ireland is to an extent being dealt with in recent years in a retrospective way, with the creation by The Heritage Council of the Irish National Strategic Archaeological Research Programme (INSTAR). This programme funds thematic research that builds on the recent decades of development-led archaeology, and aims to synthesise the information gained, involving archaeological consultancies, universities, and various research organisations as well as individual archaeologists (Gowen, 2013, p. 153-166) (heritage.ie). Though its creation came somewhat late in the day, it is helping to address the

divide between the different strands of the profession, commercial and university/research. Unfortunately, the present economic situation has seen its work curtailed greatly, just as the National Monuments Section and National Museum of Ireland have also experienced significant cutbacks.

In Denmark today, there are increasing demands and expectations (from the Agency for Culture) for museums with archaeological responsibility to conduct research in relation to the material they produce, although the downside of this is that this element of their work is not developer funded. Consequently much of this work must be externally funded, and is often carried out in co-operation with universities as part of PhDs or other post-graduate work.

Conclusion

In conclusion then, thanks in part to EU legislation, overall the legal protections for heritage in both Denmark and Ireland seem to be clear and strong. Nonetheless, the work conducted in connection to development-led archaeology is not without its flaws particularly in the research and post-excavation areas, and there are clearly issues that require attention. In Ireland, it would be beneficial if the National Monuments Act was to be amended to state that a developer would be obliged to fund a publication of the excavation – and it could be suggested that a standardised format for a basic publication, following clear guidelines, could make this a relatively inexpensive additional cost. Furthermore, it would be beneficial if it became a requirement that one was either a qualified archaeologist or a student of archaeology in order to work on an excavation, all the more so at a time when so many are out of work. If phased in, this could be seen as an encouragement to those working without qualifications to take the opportunity to gain some, and perhaps the universities might be encouraged to tailor a specific course to the needs of people in this position.

In Denmark, an amendment stating that research is also a legitimate part of putting together a thorough and contextualised site report, would be equally as beneficial. Furthermore, a licensing system for archaeological excavations similar to Ireland’s, with a process in place whereby an archaeologist would have to prove their ability to lead an excavation to the Heritage Agency, would also be useful, and would allow for clear conditions to be set down as to what standards need to be met, both in excavation stage and report stage.

As two small EU countries, Denmark and Ireland have a good deal in common, and perhaps where heritage is concerned, they could mutually benefit from an exchange of ideas in regard to their heritage management procedures, aims and legislation.

____________________________________

Figure 1. Numbers of excavations in Denamrk and Ireland, in the common peak year 2006.

Excavations in Ireland Excavations in Denmark Evaluations in Denmark

2,214 533 824

At a glance the figures above suggest a huge difference in excavation numbers between Denmark and Ireland. However, as also shown, a further 824 evaluations were carried out in Denmark, which in the Irish system would, in many cases, require a licence. This gives an overall figure of up to 1,357 for Denmark (Høst-Madsen and Harnow, 2012 p. 49), as opposed to 2,214 in Ireland (Excavations.ie). When one allows for the enormous program of road construction being carried out in Ireland at that time, the figures are relatively similar.

Acknowledgments: Thanks are due to Søren Bak Jensen, Lene Høst Madsen, Margaret Gowen, Niels Grumlose, Hanna Dahlström, Matthew Seaver and Camilla Haarby Hansen.

References: Gowen, M 2013 The Emergence of the Commercial Sector in Irish Archaeology 1987-2007:

Lessons to be learnt on research opportunities lost. In John H. Jameson and James Eogan

(eds.) 'Training and Practice for Modern Day Archaeologists' , One World Archaeology 1,

Springer Science and Business Media, New York.

Gowen, M 2012 Frameworks for develop-led archaeology in Ireland, In Leo Webley, Marc Vander Linden, Colin Haslegrove and Richard Bradley (eds.), Development-led Archaeology in Northwest Europe. Oxbow, Oxford.

Høst-Madsen, L and Harnow, H 2012. Historical Archaeology and Archaeological Practice in Denmark, In H. Harnow, D. Cranstone, Paul Belford and Lene Høst-Madsen (eds.), Across The North Sea: Later Historical Archaeology in Britain and Denmark, c. 1500-2000 AD.

University Press of South Denmark. Odense.

Mikkelsen, M 2012 Development-led archaeology in Denmark, In Leo Webley, Marc Vander Linden, Colin Haslegrove and Richard Bradley (eds.), Development-led Archaeology in Northwest Europe. Oxbow, Oxford.

Reeners, R (ed.) 2006 Archaeology 2020: Repositioning Irish Archaeology in the Knowledge

Society, University College Dublin, Dublin.

Vander Linden M and Webley, L 2012 Development-led archaeology in northwest Europe; Frameworks, practices and outcomes, In Leo Webley, Marc Vander Linden, Colin Haslegrove and Richard Bradley (eds.), Development-led Archaeology in Northwest Europe. Oxbow, Oxford.

Web References:

Council of Europe, 1992 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/143.htm (accessed 17-12-2012)

Excavations.ie, Database of Irish Excavation Reports, http://www.excavations.ie/Pages/HomePage.php (accessed 19-12-2012)

Heritage.ie, INSTAR Web Archive and Grant Programme, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/archaeology/our-initiatives/instar-web-archive-grant-programme/?L=0%2Fcontact.php (accessed 19-12-2012)

KUAS, 2011 Udredning om fremtidens museumslandskab, http://www.kulturarv.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kulturarv/publikationer/emneopdelt/museer/udredning_museer_2011.pdf (accessed 12-12-2012)

Roland, T 2012 Myterne star i kø (The myths are lining up), http://www.dm.dk/FaglighedOgViden/KulturSundhed/Artikler/MyterneStaarIKoo.aspx#.T6vVa2Tm4-g.mailto (accessed 12-12-2012)

Useful websites:

National Monuments of Ireland, http://www.archaeology.ie/ and http://www.archaeology.ie/PublicationsFormsLegislation/Legislation/

Danish Heritage Agency, http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/ and http://www.kulturstyrelsen.dk/english/cultural-heritage/sites-and-monuments/protected-sites-and-monuments/

National Roads Authority, Archaeology, http://www.nra.ie/Archaeology/ (accessed 17-12-2012) The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, www.iai.ie