K. Moeller, Will they or won‘t they? German heritage laws, public participation and the Faro Convention, European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 9 (2019), 199--218 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Will they or won’t they? German heritage laws, public participation and the Faro Convention
European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 2019
Cultural heritage is protected through a framework of national heritage laws and international treaties. While these regulate access to a certain extent, they do not necessarily try to limit it to heritage professionals. A good example is the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Faro Convention, which states that access to cultural heritage is a right and that the public should be included in a process of democratic participation. While Germany has not yet signed the Faro Convention, the CoE treaty is a good example of what genuine participation should entail. Therefore, in this paper, it is used as a baseline to analyse three of the 16 German heritage laws, namely those of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Schleswig-Holstein, in regard to public participation. Through this analysis the situation in Germany is assessed.
European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeology, 2019
The Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has long maintained that all archaeological fieldwork in Austria is only permitted with a permit according to § 11 (1) Austrian Monuments Protection Law [DMSG]. Such permits, since the last revision of this law in 1999, can only be issued to archaeology graduates, severely restricting the rights of most Austrian citizens to engage in self-determined, participatory archaeological research. Yet, the right to conduct self-determined, participatory research (also in archaeology) has been enshrined since 1923 in the Austrian Constitution (Art. 17 (1) StGG), and increasingly been guaranteed by various international legal instruments (Art. 15 (1-3) ICESCR; Art. 1, 4 and 12 Faro Convention) which Austria has ratified or acceded to by joining the European Union (Art. 13 Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union). Examining a number of cases brought in the Austrian courts by the author to specifically test the BDA's interpretation of the applicability of § 11 (1) DMSG, and relevant Austrian Supreme Court judicature on this subject matter, this paper demonstrates that in fact, the BDA has interpreted the law incorrectly for several decades at the least. If interpreting the law in line with the relevant judicature, permits are only required for archaeological research of any kind – including excavations – on scheduled archaeological monuments. Permits can be applied for pre-emptively on any other known archaeological site, if the individual – who since 1999 must be an archaeology graduate – expects to discover archaeological monuments of such significance that their (unchanged) preservation (in situ) would obviously be in the public interest. On all other land, no permit is required for any archaeological fieldwork, including self-determined participatory research by untrained members of the public. Since this raises issues for archaeological quality assurance in the context of fieldwork, but due to constitutional reasons and obligations in European and international law, the freedom to engage in cultural activities and especially in scientific research must not be restricted, a proposal is also presented of how voluntary compliance with archaeological quality assurance regulations could be enhanced. This, however, requires some fundamental changes to be made to the law and its application to participatory research in practice.
In 1905, Georg Dehio clearly stated that the only way to achieve efficient heritage protection is by means of public participation. Yet, archaeological heritage legislation in Austria almost completely outlaws any active participation by the public in the management and protection of the archaeological heritage. And not just that, our laws and practices tell the public to do as we say, not as we professionals do. The result is a crisis of legitimacy and of information flow: members of the public who want to protect heritage consciously decide to break the law, since they realize it is counter-productive; but simply do not tell professional heritage managers about what they do (and what they find). By wanting the best possible protection for archaeology, we have achieved the worst imaginable situation. Archaeological heritage protection in Austria is regulated and organized, mainly through the provisions of the Denkmalschutzgesetz (DMSG). This law has been made significantly more res...
In the public interest? Archaeological research, permits and public participation in Italy
European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 2019
This paper aims to examine the Italian legislation on archaeological research, which requires a special permit (called “concession” – “concessione” in Italian) by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. We will explore the history of the legislation on this permit and the current policy for issuing it, showing how the State policy led to a progressive exclusion of amateurs from this field. We will finally highlight the lack of evidence-based policy making in Italy, and call for a multi-stakeholder perspective in research design.
Archaeologists like to think that heritage protection laws serve the purpose to protect all archaeology from damage. Thus, provisions like that of § 11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz or Art. 3 i-ii of the Valetta convention are interpreted as a blanket ban on archaeological fieldwork ‘unauthorised’ by national heritage agencies, and a general prohibition against archaeological field research by non-professionals. The Austrian National Heritage Agency, the Bundesdenkmalamt, interprets the Austrian law in this way. Using the Austrian example as a case study, this paper demonstrates that this interpretation must be wrong, since if it were true, it would revoke a fundamental civil right enshrined both in the Austrian constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: the unconditional freedom of research, which applies to archaeological field research as to any other kind of academic research, and extends equally to every citizen.
A citizen's view on public archaeology and heritage in Austria
EAC Occasional Paper No. 14: Development-led Archaeology in Europe. Meeting the Needs of Archaeologists, Developers and the Public, 2018
In this article, I describe the current opportunities for citizen participation in archaeology and heritage in Austria. I introduce some associations and organisations that carry out archaeological projects with citizen participation then discuss the Austrian monument protection law and explain why it is difficult even with political consent to start such initiatives. I move on to explain who should still benefit from archaeology and monument preservation and what is the best way of dealing with the public. Finally, I introduce a new entity called 'bridge builders', which aims to reduce the barrier between science and the public, while at the same time promoting cooperation.
Exploring participatory heritage governance after the EU Faro Convention
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2021
This paper aims to analyse the key Faro notions of “heritage community” and “democratic participation” as defined in the Faro Convention, and how they challenge core notions of authority and expertise in the discipline and professional practice of cultural heritage. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines notions of “heritage community” and “democratic participation” as they are framed in the Faro Convention, and it briefly introduces two cases (Finland and Marseille) to explore their application. It then focusses on the implications of these two notions for heritage administration (expertise) in terms of citizen agency, co-creation of knowledge and forms of decision-making processes. Findings The Faro Convention favours an innovative approach to social, politic and economic problems using cultural heritage. To accomplish this, it empowers citizens as actors in developing heritage-based approaches. This model transforms heritage into a means for achieving socioeconomic goals and attributes to the public the ability to undertake heritage initiatives, leaving the administration and expert bodies as mediators in this process. To bring about this shift, Faro institutes the notion of “heritage communities” and fosters participative governance. However, how heritage communities practise participation may follow different paths and result in different experiences due to local and national political circumstances. Originality/value The Faro Convention opens up a window by framing cultural heritage within the realm of social and democratic instrumentality, above and beyond the heritage per se. But it also poses some questions regarding the rationale of heritage management (authority in governability), at least as understood traditionally under official heritage management discourses.