Archaeology is a very specific field; this is true even more so when it is concerning Prague’s archaeology. Can you introduce it and the main players who carry it out?
It is not easy to introduce Prague’s archaeologists as they come from various institutions. I’ll just try to give a basic overview of the situation. The Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic is the core institution in charge of the Nation’s archaeology, including Prague. The Department of Rescue Research is specifically responsible for Prague. Its base is in Prague Castle, where it takes care of archaeological research in Prague Castle, Hradčany and neighbouring areas, such as Střešovice and Břevnov. A major part of the responsibility for the historical centre of Prague is on the National Institute for the Preservation of Historical Monuments in Prague. It employs a group of archaeologists, whose activities cover Lesser Town, Old and New Town. The Museum of Prague was in charge of work in the historical centre, which is in Old and New Town. Nevertheless, it has been recently more engaged in collecting and preserving items found by others, so its field activity has diminished.
So, there are more institutions …
On top of that, there are also a few private organisations, which usually form publicly beneficial organisations. A good example is the company Archaia, which was in charge of the major research in Náměstí Republiky Square. This company also works in the historical centre of Prague. There are also few new companies, such as Archeopro, Labrys, Zip, and Archeos. They usually cover the outskirts of Prague, where there are locations of massive building activity. We shouldn’t forget the Institute of Archaeology of Central Bohemia. It primarily deals with central Bohemia, but as there are so many projects going on in Prague, its archaeologists participate on research that takes place on the southern border of outer Prague as well.
How many working archaeologists are there? From what you said it seems that there are not many of them.
There are about four hundred professional archaeologists who can do field research. That’s not many. The Institute of Archaeology participates on an international project whose aim is to find out about the numbers of archaeologists in various countries. It is already fairly obvious that in the Czech Republic this number is insufficient, especially if we consider the huge building boom. The scale of building development is comparable with the industrial revolution in the 19th century. It would be true to say that in many cities, new building works are the last opportunity to carry out research and find out what’s there. This is to a certain extent true for Prague. That makes the lack of people qualified to carry out research a serious problem.
Is it possible to say how many archaeologists work directly in Prague?
There are almost one hundred of them. This is a quarter of the total number of archaeologists. Nevertheless, the Institute of Archaeology in Prague is not in charge just of Prague, but it takes care of the whole Bohemia. The National Museum is no longer involved in Prague; the University’s main task is to train new archaeologists. So, if we add it up, we come to the number of about forty field archaeologists, and even this is maybe an exaggeration.
Who can work as a field archaeologist?
In simple terms, an archaeologist that can do the actual excavation has to have a relevant qualification, at least a master’s degree. They have to work in an institute that is able to carry out not only the excavation work, but also preservation and storing artefacts. Such institutes also need to have a licence from the Ministry of Culture, and a contract with the Institute of Archaeology. This may seem rather complicated from an administrative point of view. Most essential is that there is sufficient background and professional creditability, so that the work is of a certain standard.
It seems that to become a professional archaeologist is not easy. You say that there aren’t enough of them. How do you manage the situation with just forty people?
We are not coping very well, as a matter of fact. At the moment information research is carried in connection with the preparation of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act. The research should reveal just how much information about building activities actually reaches archaeologists. The numbers are a warning. We think that we know about less than five percent of all building activities. Of course, not every such activity affects an archaeological monument. On the other hand, we would like to be aware of all of them in order to choose those where something valuable can be found. We haven’t succeeded yet, and it is the new Cultural Heritage Protection Act that should solve the situation. Nevertheless, when this happens, I’m afraid that we will have to face the situation where lots of archaeologists are needed, if only just to assess locations of future building activities. As we already know, there aren’t enough of them.
Would it mean that each archaeologist would cover even more locations?
Yes, that’s exactly the situation. But not every event needs an archaeologist to be present all the time. The exploration of building sites involves digging a trench and the earth removal, and these activities can be carried out under the supervision of technicians. These people are able to solve situations in the field that are not too complicated. An archaeologist comes in when the earth is uncovered, and he decides whether a rescue excavation is necessary or not.
Do you know about some instances when building works damaged a precious archaeologist location?
There is one painful memory that no archaeologist can forget. It happened in the times of the previous regime. We know for sure that the oldest part of Prague is to be found under Prague Castle, in Lesser Town. It is at this location that a market used to stand, and it is logical that there were also some facilities. In the1980s, Kaiserštejn Palace was repaired, and archaeologists didn’t find out about it until it was too late. All they could do was to watch excavators digging out preserved wooden constructions that would have showed a perfect picture of the life in the 10th century. Absolutely perfect! Everyone was very upset about it. Nevertheless, at that time we thought that in the future we would find something similarly preserved in Lesser Town. It has been almost thirty years, and we haven’t found anything like this.
Does anything like this happen currently?
I can’t think of any similar scale of tragedy. On the other hand, the building development in Prague is so fast that the number of places of archaeological interest is diminishing fast. If we make a mental picture of Old and New Town, we find out that in the last ten years the number of such places decreased by a huge percentage. That means that, let’s say, in fifty years time, when there are better research methods, there will be nothing to research. One specific example is Náměstí Republiky Square and the new shopping mall Paladium. On the surface, nobody can complain as a proper archaeological survey was carried out. Nevertheless, I still think that the centre of the city is not the right place for such a huge shopping mall with such a big basement. There should have been a different solution. Almost two hectares of Prague’s origins came to an end. This happened in spite of the fact that our State accepted the Malta Convention. This document states that preference should be given to preservation of archaeological heritage at the place of its origin. By putting these fragments of history on shelves, we gave up a piece of our national heritage, and this happened because of narrow minded, private interest. Even though we have plenty of photographs and documentation, the items are not any longer at the place of their original location.
Does it mean that antiquities are more precious when they stay in the ground? What about building activity? Are there any attempts to find a solution at all?
Unfortunately, in our country there are no such attempts as the investor usually gets their way. Another sad impact on historical centres arises from current regulations. According to them, every new building has to have a certain number of parking places, and they are provided solely by building underground garages. Nobody tries to find different solutions. One example is a building site in Old Town. The investor was obliged to build underground garages even though he was able to prove that he didn’t need so many cars for the offices in the building. He had to comply with regulations which state that the number of cars is counted according to the number of offices. For him this meant more money, and for us it meant the ruining of another location. Also, the current legislative doesn’t pressurise the less sympathetic investors into opting for less drastic solutions.
So, both sides are not happy – investors, because archaeology research hinders building work, and archaeologists because locations are very often destroyed. Shouldn’t there be set locations where no building would be permitted?
It is quite difficult to prepare such documentation. We need as exact specifications of localities as possible because of property ownership and legal issues. Even if we know that there is a Celtic settlement at a two hectare site, it is not possible to protect that specific area where the settlement is. Archaeologists from the Prague Conservationist’s Department prepared a map of the historical centre which is a place with precious archaeology. However, there isn’t any legislative power that would allow establishing areas where unrestrained building wouldn’t be permitted. That means that currently an investor can find out where archaeological sites are, but he doesn’t have to act correspondingly. Then we have to enter into rather complicated negotiations, and in the best cases we manage to persuade him/her.
So, there is some information…
Yes; and the maps are up-dated as sometimes some of our expectations don’t come through, or we forget something. The most recent up-dated map should be finished by the end of this year. God bless Prague City Hall, which will publish it.
By law, a builder is obliged to report any future building activity.
There is a contradiction. Builders respect this obligation and allow for the research, and they also usually pay for it. On the other hand, archaeologists can’t stop the building, even if the location is very precious. The existing law doesn’t give an option.
What is your opinion about the building of Prague traffic circle? It is without doubt important for traffic in Prague. Isn’t it one of those gigantic buildings damaging archaeological “underground”?
We don’t see it as a big problem because the tunnels are quite deep, and run under possible archaeological sides. If I simplify it, we can say that there can be complications but only at exits and entrances to the tunnels, which is just a few percent of the whole building. Nevertheless, as a citizen I am aware of huge interventions that are part of the building, and what they mean for life in the city. At the same time, I see that the changes are absolutely irreversible. Our offices are in Prague Castle, and we are in charge of the part where the circle will pass very close to the Castle, along the Castle’s walls. If you look at those projects and compare what it looks like now and what it is going to be afterwards, you can see that there will be no place left for people, only for cars. I’m also worried that it will draw even more cars here. One thing I also regret is a little park close to Powder Bridge with a monument commemorating Captain Morávek, who committed suicide there in the war time. I regret that the park will disappear. It will be replaced by exits and tunnel access roads, and everything else will disappear. The section between Powder Bridge and the crossroad Na Špejchaře will also undergo a major change, and again it will become a place of exits and access roads. There is also another unpleasant matter. We knew about the tunnel well in advance, and we have been negotiating with City Hall, but works have already started at some places, yet we still don’t have any contract.
I know it is always difficult to choose “the best”; but, anyway, if you think of all already documented excavation, can you try to identify which one you personally see as the most fundamental?
This is one of the most difficult questions. It is indeed very difficult to single out one specific excavation. Also, you tend to give your preferences to locations where you work, which again is Prague Castle. Anyway, if I stick to Prague Castle, I think it is very important that we managed to extend its history back to the times before Přemyslid dynasty. I can’t pinpoint any specific finding, but a major discovery is that, contrary to what was written in older historic books, it wasn’t Bořivoj who founded the Castle. This ruler merely took hold of something that had already been there. He was right to guess that the place had a tremendous potential. All this means a slight change in our perception of history. It means that there had already been some kind of settlement. The question is what was it, and who ruled it? We don’t have answers to these questions yet. A collection of findings, rather than a comprehensive excavation, is the burial-place behind Riding Hall, which was excavated in the 70s and 80s. Beautiful jewellery from the Great Moravian period was found there. They are precious not only because they were made at the inception of our state, but also because they are from precious metals. If I speak about the whole of Prague, I again have to focus on such findings that changed the way we perceive the origins of our city. If we read historical books written 25 years ago, we would find out that the origins are in Old Town. These days we know that this is not true, and that the history of the city started on the left bank, in Lesser Town. It is here that we have to look for the oldest findings, as it is here where the city described by Abraham ben Jacob used to stand. We don’t have any written sources to prove it, and this is exactly when archaeology comes in. It can bring new findings about our past to light, thereby helping us to answer such questions as what we do here, who we are, and what we compare to.
Talking about deep past, I have always thought that there was some sort of rivalry between Vyšehrad and Prague Castle. They kind of fought over becoming a seat of the ruler. There was an argument whether Vyšehrad is the more suitable seat or not, if this is a place of almost mystical past etc. Can archaeology answer the question if Vyšehrad had potential to become a seat of a ruler and a centre of all happenings?
This is also a very difficult question. To give you a brief answer, I say that it didn’t. The overall situation was given by the fact that Prague basin is a place with almost the best natural conditions in Bohemia. It is located on the crossroad of long-distance paths. Prague Castle and Lesser Town represented a natural centre, and it was around them that the city settlement grew. Suddenly, another centre at Vyšehrad was artificially created. If this settlement was to grow any further it would have to, in my opinion, serve as a seat for longer time, and not only during a part the King Vratislav’s reign. It would require the support and development of Vyšehrad for several centuries, and even then there is no guarantee that it would turn out well. Also, we have to consider that the development in the 12th century meant that the whole area between Vyšehrad and Prague Castle became populated. So, even if Vyšehrad had become the seat of power, the final outcome would have been the same, as both parts would join in one unit anyway. There is one other issue I would like to mention, and I guess that not everyone will be pleased to hear it: Natural conditions and bygone origins predestined Prague to become a centre, which it has remained for a thousand years. We should be aware of this prime origin which can’t be changed.
Does an archaeologist who deals primarily with the past have any wish for the future?
One pragmatic wish is for the Culture Heritage Protection Act to turn out well, so that archaeologists have the possibility to work. It can happen that conditions for monument preservation would be set to look great on paper, but in reality nobody would follow them. I don’t want for development to stop but would like to see reduction in the amount of building work, as education of quality archaeologists is a long process.
On confirmation of the interview, Dr Frolík pointed out that the contract concerning archaeological research at locations where the city circle is built is already at Prague City Hall, and should be signed very soon.