![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Two recent higher court findings from Austria show how the Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of § 11 (1) Austrian Monument Protection Law. While the BDA has maintained for decades that consent is required under § 11 (1) for any fieldwork, even surface surveys, regardless of whether archaeology is known, legal challenge has established that neither is the case. Rather, it appears that consent under § 11 (1) is only required where there is evidence that significant archaeology will be found during the fieldwork. Furthermore, § 11 (1) only applies to sub-surface fieldwork or under-water evidence. As a consequence, as many as c.10,000 permits may have been granted illegally, with potentially costly conditions attached. This paper examines the court findings, their consequences for Austrian archaeological heritage management, the reasons why the BDA misinterpreted the law and reflects on the wider implications.
Notes
1. Belford and Wait, “Adding Value”.
2. E.g. Strobl and Sieche, Denkmalschutzgesetz für Baden-Württemberg, 265–7.
3. See note 1 above.
4. For a succinct summary, see Schofield et al., Archaeological Practice, 84–8.
5. Karl, “On the Highway to Hell”; Karl, “More Tales from Heritage Hell.”
6. Smith, Uses of Heritage, 29–34.
7. Karl, “More Tales from Heritage Hell,” 284.
8. The BDA explicitly started to interpret the provision of § 11 (1) DMSG in this fashion in 1979 (as is evident from the then legal commentary on the law: Helfgott, Rechtsvorschriften, p. 83). While there is no earlier explicit evidence available on how it was actually interpreted before that date, it almost certainly started to be interpreted like this sometime in the period between late 1969 and the start of 1979. This is because as late as 1970, ‘un-pre-permitted’ excavations by non-professionals (that is, excavations which were started without a permit and the BDA only informed once the first discoveries were made, with the BDA then only permitting the continuation of the works under the provisions of (then) § 10 (1) DMSG, which since has been renumbered as § 9 (1) DMSG in the 1999 revision of the law) were still relatively common (as can be gathered from excavations reports from the time). Also, metal detectors first came into use in Austria at the turn from 1969 to 1970 (as can be established by finds reporting figures published by the BDA, see Karl, “Archaeological Responses”); and the change in the interpretation of the applicability of § 11 (1) DMSG was clearly a reaction to this.
9. BDA, Richtlinien für archäologische Maßnahmen.
10. All English translations of originally German texts in this article are by the author.
11. ‘Voraussetzung für die Aufnahme jeglicher Grabungstätigkeiten »und sonstiger Nachforschungen an Ort und Stelle zum Zwecke der Entdeckung und Untersuchung beweglicher und unbeweglicher Denkmale« (§ 11 Abs. 1 DMSG) ist das Vorliegen eines bewilligenden Bescheides des Bundesdenkmalamtes gemäß § 11 Abs. 1 DMSG.’ (BDA, Richtlinien für archäologische Maßnahmen, 6).
12. See note 9 above, 11–2.
13. See note 9 above, 12–5.
14. However, several German state heritage agencies, based on almost exactly the same legal basis (a general excavation permit regime managed by the state heritage agency), explicitly claim such a privilege (see Strobl and Sieche, Denkmalschutzgesetz für Baden-Württemberg, 265–7).
15. Karl, “On the Highway to Hell,” 112–3.
16. Karl, “More Tales from Heritage Hell”, 284–7.
17. Karl, “Obrigkeit und Untertan,” 7–11; Karl, “The Freedom of Archaeological Research”; Karl, “Ich bin Hobbychirurg und Hobbypolizist.”
18. ‘Die Nachforschung durch Veränderung der Erdoberfläche bzw. des Grundes unter Wasser (Grabung) und sonstige Nachforschungen an Ort und Stelle zum Zwecke der Entdeckung und Untersuchung beweglicher und unbeweglicher Denkmale unter der Erd- bzw. Wasseroberfläche dürfen nur mit Bewilligung des Bundesdenkmalamtes vorgenommen werden, soweit Abs. 2 und 9 nichts anderes vorsehen (Forschungsgrabung).’ (§ 11 Abs. 1 DMSG).
19. See note 9 above.
20. See note 9 above, 6.
21. ‘… offenkundig den Beschränkungen dieses Bundesgesetzes unterliegen könnten’ (§ 8 Abs. 1 DMSG).
22. ‘Die in diesem Bundesgesetz enthaltenen Bestimmungen finden auf von Menschen geschaffene unbewegliche und bewegliche Gegenstände (einschließlich Überresten und Spuren gestaltender menschlicher Bearbeitung sowie künstlich errichteter oder gestalteter Bodenformationen) von geschichtlicher, künstlerischer oder sonstiger kultureller Bedeutung (‘Denkmale’) Anwendung, wenn ihre Erhaltung dieser Bedeutung wegen im öffentlichen Interesse gelegen ist.’ (§ 1 Abs. 1 DMSG).
23. See on this already Karl, “Ein mikrolithischer Monumentalbau”; Karl, “Obrigkeit und Untertan,” 7.
24. RV, Regierungsvorlage, 1999, 39.
25. See note 9 above, 11–2.
26. See note 9 above, 11–2.
27. ‘Die gesamte staatliche Verwaltung darf nur auf Grund der Gesetze ausgeübt werden.’ (Art. 18 Abs. 1 B-VG).
28. Art. 18 B-VG establishes, as one of the 5 main constitutional principles of the Republic of Austria, the principle of the rule of law (for a short explanation of the main constitutional principles of Austria, see: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PERK/VERF/GRUND/index.shtml [accessed 4 April 2018]). This principle establishes that the state and its agencies must not act outside the law. By issuing permits for actions which require no state permit under the law, the BDA has breached this fundamental principle of Austrian constitutional law and has thus acted illegally. The outcome of the case discussed in this chapter proves this.
29. See note 9 above.
30. Bazil et al., Das österreichische Denkmalschutzrecht, 16, 43–4.
31. Judge Pieler is well known to everyone in Austrian archaeological heritage management, because before taking up her current position as a Judge at the BVwG, she was responsible for legal matters regarding heritage management in the Austrian Ministry responsible for Cultural Affairs. It is thus also well known that, besides her law degrees, she also completed a Master’s in archaeology.
32. The case was also referenced in my application and appeal; and has already been discussed in Karl, “More Tales from Heritage Hell,” 285.
33. Farka, Die Abteilung für Bodendenkmale, 10.
34. Picker et al., “Braucht Österreich ein Unterschutzstellungsprogramm,” 285.
35. See note 9 above, 6.
36. See note 30 above, 112.
37. RV, Regierungsvorlage, 1990, 1.
38. CoE, European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1969.
39. See note 37 above, 10–2.
40. See note 4 above, 92.
41. See note 9 above, 11–2.
42. See note 16 above, 289–92.
43. RH, Bericht des Rechnungshofes: Bundesdenkmalamt.
44. The estimate has been calculated using the higher figure of Farka, Die Abteilung für Bodendenkmale, 10, of 52,000 ‘find spots’ (points on a GIS), assuming an average site size of 1 hectare; rather than the lower and more recent figure by Picker et al., “Braucht Österreich ein Unterschutzstellungsprogramm,” 285, of 19,550 ‘sites’ (area polygons on a GIS, often representing several of the ‘find spots’ counted by Farka). To get to 1% coverage of the Austrian landmass using Picker et al.’s lower figure, one would have to assume that each area polygon is on average at least 4.2 hectares in size, which, going by the reports in the Fundberichte aus Österreich and what they normally give in site sizes (normally under 1 hectare), is highly unlikely. Also, one can easily compare this with Bavaria (c. 85% the size of Austria), by checking the Bayerischer Denkmalatlas for Bodendenkmale (i.e. by switching off the built heritage and built ensemble layers). In Bavaria, there’s currently slightly over 40,000 archaeological site polygons on the publicly accessible GIS (http://geoportal.bayern.de/bayernatlas-klassik/fi_hgoXp5oHfKeLjQ1G_cyjE1EcMyrw45fQDTlTqEnc_BY73Gk8DbQ9uUinndTXv9kDHU2shxk8RATtjWRaoGppJeCL6nbqc49kSoYoRZjSP2GA8tgqDlXYZfQ8dOsXD/fi_fb/ZfQd4/oYoc4), and these cover less than 1% of the total landmass of Bavaria.
45. Hebert and Hofer, Archäologie im Bundesdenkmalamt, 13.
46. See note 15 above, 115–24.
47. See note 7 above, 291–2.
48. https://finds.org.uk/ [accessed 5 December 2017].
49. See note 9 above.
50. See note 9 above.
51. Minimal teaching at e.g. the University of Innsbruck, BA in Archaeology: https://www.uibk.ac.at/service/c101/mitteilungsblatt/2014-2015/70/mitteil.pdf, 4 [accessed 5 December 2017], lectures normally taught by the BDA archaeologist responsible for the Tyrol. Optional modules only (‘if offered’) e.g. at the University of Vienna, BA in Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology: http://www.univie.ac.at/mtbl02/2016_2017/2016_2017_131.pdf, 7 [accessed 5 December 2017], seminars normally taught by an academic archaeologist married to a BDA archaeologist. Not included in the curriculum at all e.g. at the University of Graz, BA in Archaeology: https://www.uibk.ac.at/service/c101/mitteilungsblatt/2014-2015/70/mitteil.pdf [accessed 5 December 2017]. Occasionally, there have been optional courses on heritage management offered by the current Head of the Department of Archaeology of the BDA.
52. The DASV consists of representatives of the Archaeology Student Unions at all major Austrian, German and Swiss Universities teaching archaeology degrees, see http://www.dasv-ev.org/der-verein.html [accessed 5 December 2017].
53. The letter, which as one of its core demands states that modules on the subject should be taught by sufficiently qualified staff (implying that this is not the rule across all Universities), is available at https://www.academia.edu/21044077/Offener_Brief_des_Dachverbands_Arch%C3%A4ologischer_Studierendenvertretungen_DASV_e.V._zum_Kulturg%C3%BCterschutz_in_der_universit%C3%A4ren_Lehre [accessed 5 December 2017].
54. e.g. Hebert, »Graue Schafe«; Hebert, “Theorienbildung”; Hebert, “Denkmalwerte.”
55. e.g. Fuchs, “Der latènezeitliche Waffenfund,” 1991; Fuchs, “Der laténezeitliche Waffenfund,” 1992.
56. e.g. Szemethy, “Zur Situation der ‚illegalen Archäologie,” 160–1.
57. Leskovar and Traxler, “Archäologie in Oberösterreich,” 59–62.
58. Bazil et al., Das österreichische Denkmalschutzrecht.
59. Farka, “Neufassung,” 79.
60. ‘Das Fehlen einer theoretischen Diskussion über die Grundlagen der archäologischen Denkmalpflege beruht auf dem weitgehenden Konsens aller beteiligten Fachleute seit rund zwei Jahrhunderten’; Pollak, “Zur Theorienbildung,” 227.
61. See note 6 above.
62. See note 60 above.
63. e.g. Art. 2.ii, CoE, European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), 1992.
64. e.g. VLA, Leitlinien zur Archäologischen Denkmalpflege in Deutschland, 4.
65. Art. 3, CoE, European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), 1992.
66. Karl, “Obrigkeit und Untertan,” 6–7.
67. See note 30 above, 16.
68. Karl, “Warum es einer archäologischen Berufsethik.”
69. Leaving aside philosophical and epistemological considerations of whether ‘the Truth’ exists at all and/or can be conclusively found at all (of which it seems to me that only too few of us are sufficiently aware, too); discovery of ‘the truth’, that is, at least as accurate or ‘verisimilar’ an account of what ‘actually’ was the case in the past, generally remains the goal of academic archaeology, or at least its main self-regulatory principle. At the very least, the purpose of any academic study remains to avoid and/or remove anything positively ‘false’, ‘erroneous’, ‘flawed’, etc., both from any account (including the one itself gives) and the general academic consensus; necessarily implying that the discovery of the opposite of the ‘false’, which can, even if only as a gross simplification, be called ‘the truth’, was always and remains the ultimate goal of any academic endeavour.
70. CIfA, Code of Conduct; WSVA, Ehrenkodex.
71. Rączkowski, “The German School of Archaeology,” 206.
72. In Austria, e.g. by the Staatsgrundgesetz, the constitutional law on the fundamental rights of all citizens, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the treaty enshrining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in international law; ratified by Austria in 1978), and most recently also the Faro Convention (ratified by Austria in 2015).
73. Karl, “Obrigkeit und Untertan,” 6; Karl, “Freedom of Archaeological Research”; Karl, “Ich bin Hobbychirurg und Hobbypolizist”; cf. Davydov, “Jeder kann graben?”.
74. This ‘long present’ consists of the here and now and the reasonably accurately foreseeable future. Human activity in the ‘long present’ thus consists of any activities already ongoing, about to commence, or at least in a planning stage, even though that planning may not be very specific and may not have progressed very far as yet. For instance, someone who acquires a metal detector is planning to eventually use it, even if he doesn’t yet have any specific plans for when and where to use it for what specific purpose. While he may well still decide not to use it at all, or die unexpectedly before ever getting to actually use it; the fact that he buys it, of course with the intent to use it at some point in the foreseeable future, makes not just his purchase, but also its intended use in the foreseeable future, an activity in the ‘long present’.
75. See note 57 above, 59–66.
76. “… qua Gesetz im Interesse aller … vor dem Zugriff aller …”; Lüth, “Einführung,” 102.
77. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law.
78. e.g. Leskovar and Traxler, “Archäologie in Oberösterreich,” 67; Hebert, »Graue Schafe«, 143, 162–3.
79. See more generally on this Tyler, Why People Obey the Law.
80. See note 7 above, 284–6.
81. For the first hints at this misreading, see Farka, “Neufassung,” 79.
82. Schwammenhöfer, Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Fundstellen.
83. BDA, Richtlinien für archäologische Maßnahmen. 2. Fassung, 8.
84. See note 43 above.
85. ‘Nachforschungen, insbesondere Grabungen, mit dem Ziel, Bodendenkmäler zu entdecken, bedürfen der Genehmigung der Denkmalfachbehörde.’ (§ 22 HDSchG 2016).
86. e.g. LfDH, Richtlinien zur Grabungsdokumentation, 2015; LfDH, Richtlinien zur Grabungsdokumentation, 2017; LfDH, Richtlinien Archäologie.
87. “I. Geltungsbereich der Richtlinien”: “Bei Grabungen im Land Hessen, die auf einer Nachforschungsgenehmigung nach § 21 HDSchG bzw. einer denkmalschutzrechtlichen Erlaubnis nach § 16 HDSchG beruhen, liegen die Fundbearbeitungs- und Publikationsrechte beim Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Hessen.”; LfDH, Richtlinien zur Grabungsdokumentation, 2015, 4.
88. Viebrock, Hessisches Denkmalschutzrecht, 243.
89. LfDH, Richtlinien zur Grabungsdokumentation, 2015.
90. See note 87 above.
91. It is important to note here that this is not a question of plagiarism (i.e. passing off someone else’s published work or ideas as one’s own by not citing the original source it was taken from), since this permit condition did not concern published, but as yet unpublished material.
92. LfDH, Richtlinien zur Grabungsdokumentation, 2017.
93. See note 5 above.
94. e.g. Karl, “Obrigkeit und Untertan,” 7–11; Karl, “Freedom of Archaeological Research”; Karl, “Ich bin Hobbychirurg und Hobbypolizist.”
95. See note 6 above.