Martin Tomášek: The Bill Does Not Include Expert Archaeological Supervision

Do you have the impression that the new act will bring positive changes? 

Last May, the Ministry of Culture published the subject-matter of the law on monument funding on its website. This act is to replace the existing act no. 20/87 Coll. on state monument preservation. It is true that the existing statute is dated and needs to be updated. If I am not mistaken, in the course of the last twenty years, there have been three serious attempts to create new legislation in the domain of monument preservation, none of them, however, was finalized. This leaves a big gap.

So…?

From an archaeological point of view, the new bill on monument preservation is in some instances a step forward, yet in others it becomes problematic. What we welcome, is e.g. the definition of an area with archaeological findings or the creation of plans for areas with archaeological findings. It is, in fact, the first bill that employs the term archaeological monumental preservation, yet in a rather peculiar way. Nonetheless, it is the first time that legislation mentions, that archaeology is a study done in the interest of the public, which is something that was missing in previous statutes. It is very important, since once something is done in the interest of the public it has to be treated appropriately. So the bill contains a number of progressive elements, however, it also contains elements that raise fears.

Could you be more specific?

What poses the most problems is probably the overall conception of the act, as it is basically very bureaucratic. It is not based on the concept that a monument is anything that meets a set of characteristic features. It basically describes a monument as something that has been declared a monument. But with archaeology, it is not as simple as that. The thing is that even such archaeological research that is carried out at the highest level, in fact destroys the monument. This means that if we want to preserve something, we actually have to preserve those parts that have not been explored yet. We cannot accept the philosophy that first we get to know the monument and then we will protect it. It does not work that way in archaeology. Once we get to know a monument thoroughly it in fact brings about its destruction. This is naturally a big hidden problem. Monuments are approached in a selective way, not really globally.

The area of Czech lands and Moravia are full of monuments. Should I understand it that we should preserve every single inch of the land?

It is not about monument preservation of the whole area. What we need is conditions that would enable us to obtain the information about which construction works are carried out and where and thus where archaeological research should be carried out. We need to have the opportunity to document those pieces of terrain that soon will no longer be there. It is clear, that archaeology must not stop life. We cannot close off the whole of the Czech Republic from new constructions and say that everything will remain as it is. That is nonsense.

Is it that archaeologists are not informed? I would think that it is a commonplace.

Developers have the duty to report any ground actions that they intend to undertake. But they often do not do so. What we want is that we receive the information: something is being dug here, something is being dug there and we could say, yes, we know that there used to be a burial-ground which means that there could also be a settlement, we will go and have a look. If, on the other hand, we know that there is nothing in the area, we know it is not worth our time going there. To sum it up, we need to set a group of monuments that will be declared cultural monuments or national cultural monuments and this is where the preservation should be active and where it should always be considered if any intervention into the ground is necessary. This is where most findings should remain in their original surrounding as some kind of treasure or archives.

And you would leave the rest of the country to developers, is that the idea?

Monument preservation should be active regarding other monuments as well, at least to some extent. Yet this should be achieved by different means. I’ll give you an example: Imagine I am a developer and at present I am preparing for a future construction. At this stage, I am not interested in any archaeological risks of the land that I am about to buy. I simply buy the land and only then I find out that my duty is to suffer at the hands of archaeological research. If I had known at the time of preparation that if I buy, let’s say a plot of land in Toušeň or somewhere in Central Bohemia and obtain information from relevant authorities that it is right beside a burial-ground or a settlement, I would have understood that the future construction would cost me much more than I might have expected. So I rather buy a piece of land that is situated a little bit further, where there is only a small risk or no risk at all. This is also an active preservation of the monument fund.

In such case it might be a good idea to create maps of the whole republic that would be publicly accessible where people could find out whether or not a particular piece of land is worth buying…Or are there already such maps?

Yes and no. There are several databases, one of them is the Institute of Archaeology’s database, another is so called SAS, i.e. the state archaeological list administered by the National Monument Institute. The thing with these databases, mainly with SAS is that it lists places, where something has already been found, whereas what we need is, in fact, the opposite, i.e. places, where there is a chance of finding something but this something is still under ground. And this is where the problem is. An official needs the place, the point first and only then he or she is ready to preserve it. Yet what we need to preserve is what has not been opened and destroyed yet. Such a map of the Czech Republic does not exist, though. However, there are data that would enable the creation of such a map.

So, is there currently some kind of data or a list of places available for future owners of land before they actually buy the land?

I believe that the access to the SAS databases is limited to those who have signed a contract of access. In our Institute of Archaeology we can provide people with information on archaeological risks in the chosen location but we only do it at request and so far it has not been accessible via the Internet. However, we are planning to make it accessible in the future, but we would like to do so together with the portal of the state administration so that the database would have a more official and maybe even more binding character.

Are you against the proposal to confer powers onto regional authorities to decide whether it is possible to build something in a specific place or whether an archaeological research is needed?

I have to start in a more general manner. Archaeology is not just about uncovering some kind of findings. Basically, three steps have to be taken from the determinative of an archaeological location to the placement of the artifact into a museum. The first step, which is our point, is the administration of the fund of findings, which we already have. Second step is securing the location, where an archaeological research is needed. The third step is the placement of the findings into museums. The bill practically only deals with the second step, i.e. the relationship between the developer and the community. This is where the bill confers a lot of rights and duties on regional authorities.

Is that a problem?

According to present legislation, every developer is to notify the Institute of Archaeology before a construction is started. The Institute of Archaeology, however, is not a part of the state administration and if this duty is not fulfilled, there are practically no sanctions until the developer really damages the particular location. The thing is, that developers either do not know about this or that they know about it but ignore it. Thus we receive no feedback and since we are not a part of the state administration, we do not know what permissions have been issued by building offices or by monument preservation executive bodies. So we do not know how many construction works are there that we are not aware of. We believe that it is a great number in both Bohemia and Moravia. Maybe some seventy thousand constructions each year would need archaeological supervisions but we only learn about the maximum of twenty thousand or less of them. Once the power is conferred to individual regions, i.e. the state administration, the duty to notify will be much easier to enforce. The problem here could be a complete loss of expert guarantee. Permission would become a mere bureaucratic act, which would open the possibility of corruption, cartel agreements and so on. This means that it would be possible to buy a “statement” that there is nothing to explore in the given location. This is what we are worried about, not to mention that it will be a personnel and financial burden for regional authorities. What we require is that if this procedure is put in place there should also be strict control mechanisms.

I suppose that if nowadays every building office has an expert architect to judge if an intended construction is appropriate, they could also have an archaeologist that would guarantee expert supervision?

This would probably be necessary. At present, the expert supervision is guaranteed by the Academy of Sciences. If the new bill is enacted, this expert supervision would be lost without being replaced by something or somebody else. It is true that a special committee of the Minister of Culture is to be created, however this committee, unlike the Academy of Sciences, would not necessarily be independent and it does not have to be summoned at all.

 I suppose it would not be summoned for every single construction?

One way to deal with this is to create a post for something like a regional archaeologist who would have a say in the matter. Yet the state should keep some kind of supervision too, it should not be completely taken over by regional authorities. I think that what should be created is the Ministry of Culture’s regional monument inspection. This option is not ruled out in the new bill. If it functioned in a similar way as the inspection of the environment, it would certainly be beneficial. Once the new act contains these measures, we will be less worried about the role of regions. So if the Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Archaeology is to lose its role as the guarantee of expert supervision, these institutions should be replaced by something else, substantially independent from the political pressure in individual regions.

Linda Nová