Zprávy památkové péče 2020, 80(3-4):378-384 | DOI: 10.56112/zpp.2020.3.13

Ownership and the protection of movable archaeological finds

Róbert Antal

Archeologický ústav AV ČR v Brně

Movable archaeological finds are an essential part of archaeological heritage, which in most states is protected as a public interest. The extent and possibilities of the protection of finds depend on who owns them. On a theoretical level, there are 4 possible candidates that can be singled out for this role. Into the first category fall natural and legal persons; this necessary includes, for example, those who search for archaeological finds or buyers, as well as museums and archaeological organizations. The second group includes cultural groups that have a relationship to the findings based on a historical affiliation with a particular community. This approach is more important for culturally heterogeneous countries, so it is not widely applied in Central Europe. The third group is whole nations, with the basic idea behind this concept being similar to that of cultural groups - the difference here is that this model is more suitable for culturally homogeneous landscapes, such as the Czech and Slovak Republics. The fourth candidate is humanity as a whole, an approach espoused by some international treaties. When trying to protect archaeological finds in practice, however, this model is not particularly helpful.
When deciding which direction to take, legislators should take into account three basic principles. The principle of protection and maintenance states that the findings should be kept by one who is able to ensure their adequate protection and maintenance so that they are not damaged. The principle of approach is to ensure that archaeological finds are made available to both professionals and the general public. Legislators should also take this fact into account when dealing with ownership and possession. The last principle is integrity; this states that the findings, in creating a greater whole, should be kept together so as not to compromise their testimonial and aesthetic value. Whether or not individual countries have taken or are taking these principles into account when making laws, however, is debatable.
In the Czech Republic (and similarly in Slovakia) legal norms do not allow for the private ownership of archaeological finds; they therefore the property of the regions, municipalities, or the state as a whole. These units should have adequate means to protect the findings in accordance with the above principles and should also be able to protect them from the harmful activities of the public. In practice, however, findings are still lost by amateur searchers and/or damaged by construction activities.
Austria, unlike the Czech Republic, allows for the private ownership of archaeological finds; this, however, is divided on the ideal proportions of the finder and the owner of the land on which the object is found. The finder should be primarily represented by legal entities, such as organizations conducting archaeological research. In some cases, these institutions may buy their shares from landowners, but often the ownership remains unclear. In addition, this approach to the ownership of findings does not, in practice, prevent amateurs from seeking and keeping findings for themselves. This results in significant damage to the archaeological heritage.
The United Kingdom, in some respects, is a combination of the previous approaches. If a valuable find is considered a treasure, it falls into the unconditional ownership of the British Crown. If it is not a treasure, however, the law allows for the private proprietorship of the finder or landowner. The law also encourages these parties to clarify these issues before beginning their search. In addition to those set out in England and Wales, the Portable Antiquities Scheme allows for private owners to publish their findings on the internet. This makes it possible to preserve as much information as possible about the findings and allow for their presentation to the public.
These approaches each have their strengths and weaknesses, but none of them eliminates the activities of amateurs. In the end, it is often up to them to decide whether the archaeological finds will be sufficiently protected and presented to the public. Although the aforementioned countries select different approaches to the ownership of archaeological finds, their protection faces the same problems in practice.

Keywords: ownership of archaeological finds, archaeology, heritage law

Published: September 1, 2020  Show citation