Continuous changes are happening in the legislation of preventive archaeology in Hungary. The protection of cultural heritage in Hungary is currently regulated by the Cultural Heritage Law Nr. LXIV of 2001,Footnote ¹ according to which, if an development project endangers an archaeological site and its replanning would raise the budget considerably, preventive excavation is needed. All the costs of the excavation should be covered by the investor, but the financing should be at least 0.9% of the total budget of the project. Normally, the archaeological works covered 1–5% of the overall cost of the constructions. This law made possible the complete excavation, documentation, deposition, and primary study of the finds endangered by the development.

The main administrative organ controlling preventive archaeology and protection of archaeological sites is the National Office of Cultural Heritage (KÖH)Footnote ² uniting tasks of protection of archaeological heritage and historical architectural monuments. According to legal regulations, the National Office of Cultural Heritage is the administrative authority of first instance for historic monuments, archaeological sites, and movable cultural heritage. This office is responsible for nearly 12,000 listed historic sites, buildings, conservation areas, and historic gardens all over Hungary as well as for more than 100,000 archaeological sites and 35,000 movable cultural heritage items and 240 collections in private ownership. The tasks of this authority are—among others—to register all the archaeological sites in Hungary in the form of a database open for public and to give permission for archaeological excavations, surveys, and other forms of field work. Additionally, it plays a considerable role in the cultural heritage legislation.

The rescue excavations were originally executed by the territorial operative museal collections, on the top of which stood the Hungarian National Museum. In June of 2008, this situation was fundamentally changed by the foundation of a central office for performing rescue excavations in the case of large-scale investments called Field Service for Cultural Heritage (or the commonly used abbreviation K.Ö.SZ) creating a uniform process in this field.Footnote ³ This organization was abolished and affiliated to the Hungarian National Museum by a decree of the Ministry of National ResourcesFootnote ⁴—responsible for culture, education, religion, and sciences—on 1 August 2010 with the new name National Cultural Heritage Centre (NÖK).Footnote ⁵ After this decision, the responsibility for all excavations and processes, and above all finances, was returned to 20 county museums, even though they often suffer from a shortage of capacity in terms of both space and finances.Footnote ⁶

On 28 September of 2011, a new draft law on cultural heritage protection got publicity.Footnote ⁷ According to this new legislation, the situation of contract archaeology is further aggravated by limiting the costs and time span of the fieldwork. This new draft law distinguishes test excavation and preventive excavation in the case of large-scale investments. The test excavations are to determine the future work: which part of the investment area is for complete excavation and which part to cover (a formerly unknown notion in the Hungarian cultural heritage legislation). The main problem with this phase is its maximum duration of 30 working days—unless the museum and the investor agree on the prolongation of the field work (which seems quite improbable).

The second phase of the preservation is the so-called preventive excavation, which is rendered far more difficult by the maximum time span of 30 days. The same short period is operative for the covering, too. The total cost of the test, preceding excavation and the covering, is paid by the investor, but it cannot be higher proportion than 1% of the total project budget, or even capped at 200 million Hungarian Forints (about $930,000.00) per investment. However, some points are not clear enough in the draft law because it does not define the notion of the archaeological site. Thus it includes projects such as motorways or cross-country pipelines that cross dozens of sites.

This new legislation makes cultural (mainly archaeological) heritage protection impossible in Hungary because of shortage both in finances and time. The law itself was prepared in secret, in collaboration with the National Office of Cultural Heritage, but without any relevant conciliation with any professional organizationsFootnote ⁸ or any other legal organsFootnote ⁹ of the Hungarian archaeology.

The published draft law fueled debate and protests in the Hungarian archaeology. The Association of Hungarian Archaeologists composed letters to László L. Simon, the president of the Cultural and Press Committee of the Hungarian Parliament—who presented the described draft law—to Dr. Viktor Orbán, the Hun-garian Prime Minister, and Dr. Géza Szőcs, deputy state secretary of the Ministry of National Resources, on the most problematic parts (mainly the time shortage) of the new legislation. The Organization of the Hungarian Museum Directors (MMISZ) sent a similar letter on 3 October 2011 to the Hungarian Prime Minister. Neither of them received a specific answer.Footnote ¹⁰

The second phase of the protest, on an informal level, is based on the Internet. It includes a HungarianFootnote ¹¹ and English announcementFootnote ¹² of the Association of Hungarian Archaeologists, a Facebook group called 600 for Archaeology,Footnote ¹³ several online articles,Footnote ¹⁴ radio broadcasts,Footnote ¹⁵ and blogs not only in Hungarian but in other languages as well.Footnote ¹⁶ Several archaeologists abroad joined some of the groups or announced the changes on their own channels, among them Sir Colin Renfrew .Footnote ¹⁷ Even a new conference was organized by the National Cultural Heritage Centre as a reaction to the changes on the role of predictive models in the site surveys and preventive archaeology.Footnote ¹⁸ Friedrich Lüth, the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) president sent a letter to the minister of culture. In this letter, the EAA expresses its strongest concerns regarding the recently proposed modifications to archaeological heritage protection regulations in Hungary.

In just one example of a site that would have suffered under such a regulation, the Alsónyék-Bátaszék Neolithic site was excavated prior the construction of the M6 motorway between 2006 and 2009. It consists of a mostly continuous sequence from the early Neolithic to the Middle Chalcolithic, with the largest Starčevo sites and graves ever found in Hungary, LBK, and Sopot settlements and a Late Neolithic site with about 80 buildings and almost 2500 burials, most of them with extremely rich grave goods of Spondylus and copper jewelry, obsidian knives, polished tools, hundreds of whole vessels, and even grave constructions standing on large wooden posts. The excavation of this unique site will be followed by a scientific evaluation, funded by research programs, and will be undertaken in several doctoral dissertations. A site like this, not unusual in the rich (pre)history of the Hungarian lowlands, would be almost entirely destroyed, if (or when) the planned modification comes into force.

During this difficult period of European and Hungarian economy, large-scale investments and developments are of crucial importance, however, the unique nature of cultural heritage should not be forgotten before irreversible damages happen in various archaeological sites in Hungary. In professional circles the significance of the Carpathian Basin and thus Hungary cannot be emphasized enough both for European prehistory, Migration, and Early Medieval periods.

One would assume that a right-wing conservative government would take a special care of the Hungarian as well as a European cultural heritage. But even if this is often not visible, a more culture friendly policy could be expected at least. To end with the still valid thoughts of a Hungarian archaeologist and writer, Ferenc Móra, who had several archaeological short stories in the 1930,sFootnote ¹⁹ “The simulation of cultural sense is a very significant progress towards the culture.”