Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Judgement Day in Heritage Hell: Heritage Practice, Policy, and the Law in Austria (and Beyond)

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    250 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Two recent higher court findings from Austria show how the Austrian National Heritage Agency [BDA] has misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of § 11 (1) Austrian Monument Protection Law. While the BDA has maintained for decades that consent is required under § 11 (1) for any fieldwork, even surface surveys, regardless of whether archaeology is known, legal challenge has established that neither is the case. Rather, it appears that consent under § 11 (1) is only required where there is evidence that significant archaeology will be found during the fieldwork. Furthermore, § 11 (1) only applies to sub-surface fieldwork or under-water evidence. As a consequence, as many as c.10,000 permits may have been granted illegally, with potentially costly conditions attached. This paper examines the court findings, their consequences for Austrian archaeological heritage management, the reasons why the BDA misinterpreted the law and reflects on the wider implications.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)128-149
    JournalHistoric Environment – Policy and Practice
    Volume9
    Issue number2
    Early online date20 Apr 2018
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Sept 2018

    Keywords

    • ARCHAEOLOGY
    • Heritage
    • Heritage law
    • Heritage management
    • LAW
    • Court judgements
    • Austria

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Judgement Day in Heritage Hell: Heritage Practice, Policy, and the Law in Austria (and Beyond)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this