Scientists criticize the ministerial amendment to the heritage conservation law

Prague - Leading Czech scientists claim that the ministerial amendment to the monument care law, known as the archaeological amendment, degrades archaeological research to mere "cleaning" of areas from archaeological finds for builders and the transfer of these finds to storage. According to them, the amendment is flawed and gives up on the scientific basis of archaeological research, they stated in a declaration provided to ČTK today.
According to the Ministry of Culture (MK), the claim about a reduction in the scientific basis of archaeology lacks factual support. The current law only refers to it marginally. "In this state, the proposed amendment not only cannot reduce the scientific basis of archaeological monument care compared to the existing, factually unaddressed state, but on the contrary, it accepts its explicit anchoring," states the MK on its website.
Nine scientists from Charles University, the University of South Bohemia, Silesian University, Masaryk University, West Bohemia University, the University of Hradec Králové, and the Academy of Sciences, who participated in the drafting of the amendment, declare in the statement that the ministry did not take their significant comments into consideration and refused to engage further with them. According to them, the amendment has several serious flaws that disqualify it. The scientists provided their objections to the Minister of Culture Alena Hanáková.
However, the ministry claims it did not resist discussions. It also created an advisory team composed of representatives from the MK, the National Heritage Institute, the regions, municipalities, the Academy of Sciences, both archaeological institutes, universities, galleries, and the Czech Chamber of Architects. "A month before sending the material for government discussion, the commission members were asked to submit their comments," asserts the MK, which claims to have also communicated with some entities whose representatives signed the statement. However, it either received no response at all or only an insufficient one.
Last week, the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Sciences criticized the amendment, asking the minister not to present it to the government in its current form. The proposal has already been submitted to the government's legislative council.
The scientists state in the declaration that while today it is necessary for an archaeological site to be declared as a cultural monument or excluded from this category to request an opinion from a professional organization, the amendment would only require a statement from the regional or municipal office. The scientists consider this change an example of "fatal resignation on any scientific potential of such cultural heritage".
In the existing system, the Academy of Sciences guarantees the expertise of archaeological research and the scientific processing of finds. According to the amendment, the Archaeological Council is to be a full-fledged substitute for this professional guarantee as an advisory body to the Ministry of Culture and archaeological regional committees. However, according to the signatories of the declaration, these bodies are mentioned in the amendment very vague, without any definition of tasks, and thus without any influence.
Furthermore, the scientists object that the amendment softens the conditions for obtaining authorization to conduct archaeological research, both regarding the requirements for the equipment of storage spaces for archaeological finds and for the certification of these organizations, which is completely missing in the amendment. In addition, they have objections to unnecessary bureaucratization of the system. According to them, the amendment, for example, requires a project to be developed for each archaeological research, even for the survey of a water connection where nothing is found in the excavation.
The overall concept of the amendment, according to the scientists, does not perceive archaeology as a non-profit scientific activity that investigates and protects archaeological heritage. Instead, it allegedly tries to shift this scientific field into the position of a commercial service, comparable, for example, to the restoration and conservation of monuments, which an investor can order based on price offers.
However, the public, according to the scientists, expects that the money spent on rescuing archaeological finds will ultimately be used for scientific interpretations, which will contribute to increasingly accurate explanations of historical events.