THE POINT OF VIEW OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AUTHORITIES
Summary
The conservation of the French archaeological heritage has been seriously threatened for several decades by users of metal detectors. To stem this scourge, which undermines research and the conservation of vestiges, the State is implementing educational and repressive actions.
Abstract
The conservation of France's archaeological heritage has been seriously threatened for several decades by users of metal detectors. To curb this scourge, which undermines research and conservation of the remains, the State implements educational and repressive measures.
This text is the result of a communication presented during the “Archéo-Éthique” conference, available in French and English.
The looting of archaeological sites by prospecting with a metal detector has become in France a central question for public heritage policy. This problem of metal detection was dealt with in 1981 by the Council of Europe [1], in particular considering that “this problem is only one aspect of a general misconception of the principles of archeology and nature of archaeological heritage ". Regularly French archaeologists, sometimes associated with jurists [2-8] have published contributions in national and international journals [9] to alert, with rare exceptions [10], to this problem and its consequences for archaeological research .
On June 22, 1989, Senator Michel Miroudot presented to the Senate a report on the subject of detection with a view to the adoption of a specific law. After having recalled that heritage is "a finite cultural reserve", he indicates in particular that "users of metal detectors are motivated by a desire to discover metallic objects with a view to their possession - the objective is then the constitution of a personal collection - or from the market supply of antiques - the mobile is then profit ”[11].
In 2011, a report prepared by the National Council for Archaeological Research (CNRA) returned to this subject [12]. This report does not use the systems set up in Denmark (the Danefæ), England and Wales (Treasure Act) as an alternative solution, but rather suggests strengthening the legal framework on the grounds that heritage is “a cultural asset fragile and non-renewable ”. The idea of a license for the owners of a detector with fiscal stamp is immediately rejected by the National Council. Among the proposals made, that of a registration and registration of metal detectors which, combined with prefectural authorization, would have the effect of better controlling this activity.Very quickly the associations of detectorists made known their opposition to these principles by publishing responses to the text of the CNRA. This is the case, for example, of the association Vive la detection under the title "claims" or of Detect + which supports the position of the European Federation of Prospectors, that: "the real challenge is to associate rather than to exclude and to seek the conditions for a lasting collaboration between prospectors and users of metal detectors [UDM] and archaeologists in the field, above all to avoid a final divide between two worlds which are in reality very complementary ”[13]. As for the National Federation of Metal Detector Users (FNUDEM), it presents in a text published on its site in 2013, to avoid "current drifts and destructive conflicts",a dozen proposals and suggests grouping the users of a metal detector into a single federation to allow the State to have a single interlocutor [14].
In reality, this position, by the highest consultative archaeological body representative of the national scientific community, is in line with the logic of the law of December 18, 1989 relating to the use of metal detectors which stipulates in its article 1 that "No one may use equipment allowing the detection of metallic objects, for the purpose of researching monuments and objects that may be of interest to Prehistory, history, art or archeology, without having, beforehand , obtained the administrative authorization issued according to the qualification of the applicant as well as the nature and the methods of the research ”[15]. With this law, France has anticipated a principle which is enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage [16],known as the “Malta Convention” ratified by France in 1994, Article 3 of which indicates that the member States of the Council of Europe and the other States party to this Convention have agreed to subject the use of detectors to a specific prior authorization of metals and other detection equipment or processes for archaeological research. This decision, like prospecting and excavation, requires for the national territory that the prospector carries out the compulsory steps in application of the law of September 27, 1941 [17] regulating archaeological excavations before any engagement on the ground, in order to obtain an administrative authorization issued by the State services, Ministry of Culture - Regional Directorate of Cultural Affairs with territorial jurisdiction.This authorization must be based on a coherent scientific project led by people who can justify appropriate technical and scientific skills. This general principle is again confirmed in 2004 in the heritage code, of which Article L. 542-1 [18] 1 takes word for word article 1 of the 1989 law to avoid that followers of "now known as leisure detection", practiced outside any scientific framework, accelerate the erosion of the archaeological heritage and deprives "citizens and future generations of unprecedented sources necessary for knowledge of the territories' past" as the Minister of Culture pointed out in response, on July 12, 2016, to the National Assembly to a parliamentarian [19].
The adoption on July 7, 2016 of the law relating to freedom of creation [20], architecture and heritage will bring to an end, according to articles L. 541- 4 to 6, a halt to the trade in archaeological objects following clarifications regarding the ownership regime for what are now called "archaeological goods" 2. Thus the controversies related to auctions, like the one we experienced in April 2019 about a lot of objects discovered in 2012 in Tavers (Loiret) by detectorists, will no longer be able to reproduce. This set included sixty-five protohistoric objects which, having regard to heritage and scientific interest, had been declared by the Ministry of Culture to be a "national treasure", thus preventing objects from leaving French territory.It was offered for sale at a price of 50,000 euros. The regional and national written and oral press widely covered this affair, for example in the daily newspaper Le Figaro of April 25, 2019, the article entitled "Raising of shields before the auction of a Gallic treasure" [21]. It has also given rise to numerous exchanges on social networks. Complaints were lodged by the association Halte au pillage on the one hand and on the other hand by the auctioneers. Finally, the objects were acquired a few hours before the sale, after a mutual agreement between the seller and the national archaeological museum of Saint-Germain-en-Laye at the amount of the starting price. For the time being, despite the consolidation of the law on the subject [22] and the almost unanimous positions of French archaeologists,it is clear that this phenomenon has worsened, jeopardizing the good conservation of the soil archives. The comments left on social networks and on forums clearly demonstrate this through the regular presentation of discoveries made during day or night outings alone or in groups.
In this context where the steps and educational actions (Figure 1) initiated by the State are not enough, it is necessary to resort to repressive measures.
The conservation of the French archaeological heritage has been seriously threatened for several decades by users of metal detectors. To stem this scourge, which undermines research and the conservation of vestiges, the State is implementing educational and repressive actions.
Abstract
The conservation of France's archaeological heritage has been seriously threatened for several decades by users of metal detectors. To curb this scourge, which undermines research and conservation of the remains, the State implements educational and repressive measures.
This text is the result of a communication presented during the “Archéo-Éthique” conference, available in French and English.
The looting of archaeological sites by prospecting with a metal detector has become in France a central question for public heritage policy. This problem of metal detection was dealt with in 1981 by the Council of Europe [1], in particular considering that “this problem is only one aspect of a general misconception of the principles of archeology and nature of archaeological heritage ". Regularly French archaeologists, sometimes associated with jurists [2-8] have published contributions in national and international journals [9] to alert, with rare exceptions [10], to this problem and its consequences for archaeological research .
On June 22, 1989, Senator Michel Miroudot presented to the Senate a report on the subject of detection with a view to the adoption of a specific law. After having recalled that heritage is "a finite cultural reserve", he indicates in particular that "users of metal detectors are motivated by a desire to discover metallic objects with a view to their possession - the objective is then the constitution of a personal collection - or from the market supply of antiques - the mobile is then profit ”[11].
In 2011, a report prepared by the National Council for Archaeological Research (CNRA) returned to this subject [12]. This report does not use the systems set up in Denmark (the Danefæ), England and Wales (Treasure Act) as an alternative solution, but rather suggests strengthening the legal framework on the grounds that heritage is “a cultural asset fragile and non-renewable ”. The idea of a license for the owners of a detector with fiscal stamp is immediately rejected by the National Council. Among the proposals made, that of a registration and registration of metal detectors which, combined with prefectural authorization, would have the effect of better controlling this activity.Very quickly the associations of detectorists made known their opposition to these principles by publishing responses to the text of the CNRA. This is the case, for example, of the association Vive la detection under the title "claims" or of Detect + which supports the position of the European Federation of Prospectors, that: "the real challenge is to associate rather than to exclude and to seek the conditions for a lasting collaboration between prospectors and users of metal detectors [UDM] and archaeologists in the field, above all to avoid a final divide between two worlds which are in reality very complementary ”[13]. As for the National Federation of Metal Detector Users (FNUDEM), it presents in a text published on its site in 2013, to avoid "current drifts and destructive conflicts",a dozen proposals and suggests grouping the users of a metal detector into a single federation to allow the State to have a single interlocutor [14].
In reality, this position, by the highest consultative archaeological body representative of the national scientific community, is in line with the logic of the law of December 18, 1989 relating to the use of metal detectors which stipulates in its article 1 that "No one may use equipment allowing the detection of metallic objects, for the purpose of researching monuments and objects that may be of interest to Prehistory, history, art or archeology, without having, beforehand , obtained the administrative authorization issued according to the qualification of the applicant as well as the nature and the methods of the research ”[15]. With this law, France has anticipated a principle which is enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage [16],known as the “Malta Convention” ratified by France in 1994, Article 3 of which indicates that the member States of the Council of Europe and the other States party to this Convention have agreed to subject the use of detectors to a specific prior authorization of metals and other detection equipment or processes for archaeological research. This decision, like prospecting and excavation, requires for the national territory that the prospector carries out the compulsory steps in application of the law of September 27, 1941 [17] regulating archaeological excavations before any engagement on the ground, in order to obtain an administrative authorization issued by the State services, Ministry of Culture - Regional Directorate of Cultural Affairs with territorial jurisdiction.This authorization must be based on a coherent scientific project led by people who can justify appropriate technical and scientific skills. This general principle is again confirmed in 2004 in the heritage code, of which Article L. 542-1 [18] 1 takes word for word article 1 of the 1989 law to avoid that followers of "now known as leisure detection", practiced outside any scientific framework, accelerate the erosion of the archaeological heritage and deprives "citizens and future generations of unprecedented sources necessary for knowledge of the territories' past" as the Minister of Culture pointed out in response, on July 12, 2016, to the National Assembly to a parliamentarian [19].
The adoption on July 7, 2016 of the law relating to freedom of creation [20], architecture and heritage will bring to an end, according to articles L. 541- 4 to 6, a halt to the trade in archaeological objects following clarifications regarding the ownership regime for what are now called "archaeological goods" 2. Thus the controversies related to auctions, like the one we experienced in April 2019 about a lot of objects discovered in 2012 in Tavers (Loiret) by detectorists, will no longer be able to reproduce. This set included sixty-five protohistoric objects which, having regard to heritage and scientific interest, had been declared by the Ministry of Culture to be a "national treasure", thus preventing objects from leaving French territory.It was offered for sale at a price of 50,000 euros. The regional and national written and oral press widely covered this affair, for example in the daily newspaper Le Figaro of April 25, 2019, the article entitled "Raising of shields before the auction of a Gallic treasure" [21]. It has also given rise to numerous exchanges on social networks. Complaints were lodged by the association Halte au pillage on the one hand and on the other hand by the auctioneers. Finally, the objects were acquired a few hours before the sale, after a mutual agreement between the seller and the national archaeological museum of Saint-Germain-en-Laye at the amount of the starting price. For the time being, despite the consolidation of the law on the subject [22] and the almost unanimous positions of French archaeologists,it is clear that this phenomenon has worsened, jeopardizing the good conservation of the soil archives. The comments left on social networks and on forums clearly demonstrate this through the regular presentation of discoveries made during day or night outings alone or in groups.
In this context where the steps and educational actions (Figure 1) initiated by the State are not enough, it is necessary to resort to repressive measures.
It is in this logic that the Ministry of
Culture approached the gendarmerie, customs
and national police services in parallel
with meetings with the services of the
Ministry of Justice. The consequence of
these steps was a reinforcement of the
controls leading to an increase, during the
last ten years, of the convictions bringing
by the same token proof of the illegality
of these surveys for the judges. To
strengthen criminal action, the Ministry of
Justice - Directorate of Criminal Affairs
and Pardons - published in 2017 a Focus
entitled "The judicial treatment of attacks
on the archaeological and historical
cultural heritage" [23]. This document is
accompanied by a summary table of the
penalties incurred (Annex 1) with regard to
the codes of criminal procedure,
Heritage,customs,
1 In the regulatory part of the heritage code, article R. 542-1 created by Decree n ° 2011-574 of May 24, 2011 stipulates: "Authorization to use equipment allowing the detection of metallic objects, provided for in article L. 542-1, is granted, at the request of the interested party, by order of the prefect of the region in which the land to be prospected is located. The authorization request specifies the identity, skills and experience of its author as well as the location, the scientific objective and the duration of the surveys to be undertaken. When the surveys must be carried out on land not belonging to the applicant, the latter must attach to his file the written consent of the owner of the land and, where applicable, that of any other person entitled . 2 In article L. 541-4:"Articles 552 and 716 of the Civil Code do not apply to movable archaeological goods discovered following archaeological excavations or fortuitous discoveries made on land the ownership of which was acquired after the date of entry into force of law n ° 2016- 925 of July 7, 2016 relating to the freedom of creation, architecture and heritage. These movable archaeological goods are presumed to belong to the State as soon as they are discovered during an archaeological operation and, in the event of a fortuitous discovery, from the recognition of the scientific interest justifying their conservation ”.
Internal Security and Labor. It will be widely disseminated to magistrates and investigators. When the detectorists read this document, many comments are published on the websites of detection associations and forums fearing an accentuation of the controls.
A judgment pronounced by the High Court of Avignon (Vaucluse) is at the origin in 2017 of a national panic movement leading many detectorists to urgently delete their videos published on YouTube for fear of having to answer for their actions before a judge. Under the title "Wind of panic on social networks: what is true and what reveals intoxication! ", The Vive la detection website published on February 13, 2017 [24] a long text with a subtitle" I am not Marcus ", using the pseudonym of the convicted person and echoing the recent Paris attacks. This text ends with a series of recommendations to avoid prospectors from having "trouble". Other sites, like Detexpert,invite prospectors, on the contrary, to continue to post their findings to prevent "our detractors from winning the battle".
For the past three decades, following a combination of factors (reduction of working time, modification of the retirement age, worsening of unemployment, etc.), we are witnessing in France a strong progression of the followers of the detection. In 2013, the European Federation of Prospectors (FEP) estimated the workforce at nearly 4,000 in France. The Vive la detection site mentions that between 10,000 and 15,000 detectors have been sold per year since 2011; more than 100,000 prospectors counted in 25 years; around 100 active websites (forums, blogs) [25]. The UNDEFEM in 2013 gives the figure of 30,000 users of a detector. According to the site Le fouilleur, detectorists are currently in France at least 100,000. Beyond a quarrel over figures,the main thing is to remember that over the years the population of detectors continues to increase. The year 2013 will also see the creation of a National Council for Metallic Detection (CNDM) to try to legitimize this practice. It brings together around fifty entities (associations, manufacturers, sellers, forums) in order to "effectively fight against the looting of heritage, there is no point in prohibiting this leisure, as some advocate, but it is necessary, at on the contrary, frame it in such a way as to preserve its freedom, while protecting the vestiges and promoting fortuitous discoveries ”. In 2017/2018, discussions revolved around the advisability of creating a detectors union. This prospect, like that of a grouping of associations, cannot succeed for lack of agreement between the different groups.To close on this point the number of prospectors and show the importance of this phenomenon, we can recall here some statistical data visible on the Detector.net forum. In April 2019, we note that 10 3587 messages are exchanged about the performance of detector brands, 11 260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and more overall that on this same forum were published 1,245,327 messages by 21,733 members.11,260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and, more generally than on this same forum, 1,245,327 messages were published by 21,733 members.11,260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and, more generally than on this same forum, 1,245,327 messages were published by 21,733 members.
These prospectings with metal detectors without authorization are in the eyes of the law of the infringements which are, as we already indicated, regularly denounced by the community of professional and amateur archaeologists by actions of information relaying the campaigns launched by the ministry of Culture (Annex 2). At the same time, detection is encouraged by the enticing advertisements of the sellers praising the increasingly large performances of the devices with possibilities of spreading of the financing at the time of the purchase and especially, of potential and spectacular discoveries of objects in precious metal. To avoid falling under the law,the webmasters of the forums and the editorial staffs of the detection journals take care to recall in small print and footnotes some elements of the regulations. An increasingly abundant literature, mainly works presented as guides or manuals [26-28] are made available to detectors and sometimes sold directly by detector dealers. The proliferation of publications encouraging the discovery of treasures also contributes to this craze. G. Demaretz in a book mentions for example that more than 350 treasures are found annually in France [29]. Many websites follow this same logic, like the couloir du net website, the title of which is perfectly suggestive: "lost, buried and forgotten treasures" or even on Topito.com,the “Top 10 treasures that remain to be found in France”.
Some even embark on the publication of works with legal claims intended to provide protection to detectorists [30-31]. The situation remains paradoxical. On the one hand, a repressive legislative arsenal consolidated by a synergy of several codes; on the other, merchants, a specialized press and forums of detectors who regularly publish sensational articles which is explained by the fact that the democratization of these devices today represents a real financial market. This is increasing steadily as a result of an increase in the range of devices with many associated items (clothes, pointers, pickaxes, tools for cleaning objects, books, maps, etc.) and new products,for example for a few months the magnet fishing which allows to go to the conquest of new spaces (rivers and lakes) not without risk for the prospectors who uncover munitions of the last two world conflicts and directly expose their lives.
This market gives birth to a real economic war between the various manufacturers, the resellers and gives rise to conflicts with the users whose comments on the social networks show the vigor. It is in this dynamic that the multiplication of rallies takes place in recent years. These events bring together hundreds of people for one or more days. They are organized with the official aim of finding previously hidden tokens. The key to these events, the organizers offer many prizes, including detection equipment and even for a rally scheduled to take place in October 2019 in the south of France, a car and up to 50,000 euros in prizes.
Beyond the obligation to undertake administrative procedures before carrying out prospecting with a metal detector, there is the question of whether the use outside of the methodological principles of archeology does or does not damage the heritage. The answer to this question is provided by the appliance merchants themselves with the publication of technical data. The results of tests and comparative tables between the different brands of detectors are regularly published, in particular on the forums. We can give here as an example the survey carried out by the excavator between 2005 and 2015. This survey is based on taking into account five main criteria (depth, discrimination, sound reproduction / responsiveness / handling / versatility) .The device which obtains the best evaluation (65%) is sold at a price of 999 euros. From these different experiments, it appears that these devices today detect a currency up to 40 cm; a medium-sized metal mass (volume of a can) up to 70 cm and a large mass up to two meters deep. To make better use of these devices, manuals have been written and articles presented on dedicated forums widely distributed to detectorists (Metal Detector, Pringault Detection, Le site du jardinier). To promote the lucrative detection market, promotional offers are regularly launched and new products announced. On the Garret.com site,we can read for example about a new device "its depth of detection can" give life "to apparently exhausted sites or find new sites"; representatives of major brands of detectors come from abroad to extol the performance of products during rallies like the “Diggers”. The steady drop in the entry-level price of these devices is also a reason for this growing success.
The development of the internet has greatly amplified the circuits of exchange and dissemination of information between users of a metal detector with the posting of videos published on YouTube with sometimes several thousand views, discussions on the forums and on Facebook in particular. It is now obvious, detection has become a real fact of society. There is also an increase in the number of detection associations at regional or national level (see the interactive map of associations published in 2018 on the Facebook site “les Poëleux”) and federations. They are distributed throughout the national territory.The facts recalled above are evidence against the discourse conveyed by the detectorists who regularly claims that their main objective is to clear the land, as proof the videos published by certain participants on YouTube
Archeology is a unique approach which must allow, through appropriate techniques, to apprehend things from the past. From this perspective, not only the conditions of discovery of an object matter, but also its entire environment, the context, the study of which is based on the principle of a stratigraphic investigation. For decades, the archaeologist has known that he can extract a great deal of information by meticulous examination and according to multidisciplinary approaches to the earth that conceals the artefacts. This look, carried by specialists, is essential for a better understanding of the excavated site, but also often to better understand the function of the object and its value for its users at the time.The artefacts and ecofacts uncovered constitute for the scientific world fundamental databases for the reconstruction of societies from the past. As with decrypting a crime scene, all the clues brought to light during a search contribute to a better perception of the historical facts studied. Everyone knows that to excavate is to destroy and this principle applies to all teams, it is obvious that justifies that we privilege the conservation of sites to their explorations. Keeping the soil archives in situ also means offering future generations of researchers the possibility of undertaking studies using technologies and knowledge that are currently unknown.It is with these facts in mind that one should look with concern at the loss of data as a result of improper procedures. On January 22, 2014, the France Presse agency announced in a press release that more than 500,000 archaeological objects were looted each year in France [32]. For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.
The actors of this clandestine research present diverse profiles. Prospectors themselves establish a classification into four groups: history buffs, leisure prospectors, free electrons and looters who, as we have seen in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region, for some do not hesitate to resume this tort activity after a judicial conviction. On the UNDEFEM site who provide some advice among which not to follow up “on prospectors who tell you that they are on the right track and ask you to accompany them. Good luck is nothing other than an archaeological site. ” The survey carried out on our initiative in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region from 2015 [23-35], the first carried out systematically on the scale of an administrative region,allowed to show the extent of the detection phenomenon and to deliver the first reliable statistical data. Among the 1,000 people identified as practicing detection, more than 600 do so on a regular basis, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.more than 600 do it regularly, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.more than 600 do it regularly, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.
The age pyramid ranges from adolescents to octogenarians, as we have seen during legal proceedings in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region since 2015 [33]. This regional survey shows that 90% of prospectors are men; 70% are grouped in the 30/40 age group. If all social categories are concerned, the detectorists are for about 60% of workers and craftsmen. In this panel, we find "brave fathers of families" who, by taste for history and adventure, practice alone or with their families, detection no doubt animated by the desire to one day discover a treasure in the image reports read in detection journals. This quest to discover a fabulous treasure is, without a doubt,the result of images inscribed in the collective imagination that continue today to give the media of the archaeologist indefectably associated with the myth of Indiana Jones and the discovery of lost civilizations. For these prospectors, it is easy to demonstrate the damage produced by such actions on the archaeological heritage. These have indeed nothing in common with those who practice this activity first and foremost, to trade in their finds. Experience has shown that after a reminder of the law, a certain number of them cease this activity, others join excavation teams and contribute voluntarily to the study of heritage in the framework of programmed research that s is a search or prospecting.
To try to put a stop to these plunderings of archaeological sites without any relation with an alleged action of depollution of the grounds or a leisure activity, between 2015 and 2019 more than a hundred of complaints and reports under article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the regional archeology service of the regional directorate of cultural affairs of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur with the courts during the past four years. 55 searches were carried out [34,35] (Figure 2).
1 In the regulatory part of the heritage code, article R. 542-1 created by Decree n ° 2011-574 of May 24, 2011 stipulates: "Authorization to use equipment allowing the detection of metallic objects, provided for in article L. 542-1, is granted, at the request of the interested party, by order of the prefect of the region in which the land to be prospected is located. The authorization request specifies the identity, skills and experience of its author as well as the location, the scientific objective and the duration of the surveys to be undertaken. When the surveys must be carried out on land not belonging to the applicant, the latter must attach to his file the written consent of the owner of the land and, where applicable, that of any other person entitled . 2 In article L. 541-4:"Articles 552 and 716 of the Civil Code do not apply to movable archaeological goods discovered following archaeological excavations or fortuitous discoveries made on land the ownership of which was acquired after the date of entry into force of law n ° 2016- 925 of July 7, 2016 relating to the freedom of creation, architecture and heritage. These movable archaeological goods are presumed to belong to the State as soon as they are discovered during an archaeological operation and, in the event of a fortuitous discovery, from the recognition of the scientific interest justifying their conservation ”.
Internal Security and Labor. It will be widely disseminated to magistrates and investigators. When the detectorists read this document, many comments are published on the websites of detection associations and forums fearing an accentuation of the controls.
A judgment pronounced by the High Court of Avignon (Vaucluse) is at the origin in 2017 of a national panic movement leading many detectorists to urgently delete their videos published on YouTube for fear of having to answer for their actions before a judge. Under the title "Wind of panic on social networks: what is true and what reveals intoxication! ", The Vive la detection website published on February 13, 2017 [24] a long text with a subtitle" I am not Marcus ", using the pseudonym of the convicted person and echoing the recent Paris attacks. This text ends with a series of recommendations to avoid prospectors from having "trouble". Other sites, like Detexpert,invite prospectors, on the contrary, to continue to post their findings to prevent "our detractors from winning the battle".
For the past three decades, following a combination of factors (reduction of working time, modification of the retirement age, worsening of unemployment, etc.), we are witnessing in France a strong progression of the followers of the detection. In 2013, the European Federation of Prospectors (FEP) estimated the workforce at nearly 4,000 in France. The Vive la detection site mentions that between 10,000 and 15,000 detectors have been sold per year since 2011; more than 100,000 prospectors counted in 25 years; around 100 active websites (forums, blogs) [25]. The UNDEFEM in 2013 gives the figure of 30,000 users of a detector. According to the site Le fouilleur, detectorists are currently in France at least 100,000. Beyond a quarrel over figures,the main thing is to remember that over the years the population of detectors continues to increase. The year 2013 will also see the creation of a National Council for Metallic Detection (CNDM) to try to legitimize this practice. It brings together around fifty entities (associations, manufacturers, sellers, forums) in order to "effectively fight against the looting of heritage, there is no point in prohibiting this leisure, as some advocate, but it is necessary, at on the contrary, frame it in such a way as to preserve its freedom, while protecting the vestiges and promoting fortuitous discoveries ”. In 2017/2018, discussions revolved around the advisability of creating a detectors union. This prospect, like that of a grouping of associations, cannot succeed for lack of agreement between the different groups.To close on this point the number of prospectors and show the importance of this phenomenon, we can recall here some statistical data visible on the Detector.net forum. In April 2019, we note that 10 3587 messages are exchanged about the performance of detector brands, 11 260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and more overall that on this same forum were published 1,245,327 messages by 21,733 members.11,260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and, more generally than on this same forum, 1,245,327 messages were published by 21,733 members.11,260 messages corresponding to 972 subjects were published in the “tutorials and tips for metal detection” section and, more generally than on this same forum, 1,245,327 messages were published by 21,733 members.
These prospectings with metal detectors without authorization are in the eyes of the law of the infringements which are, as we already indicated, regularly denounced by the community of professional and amateur archaeologists by actions of information relaying the campaigns launched by the ministry of Culture (Annex 2). At the same time, detection is encouraged by the enticing advertisements of the sellers praising the increasingly large performances of the devices with possibilities of spreading of the financing at the time of the purchase and especially, of potential and spectacular discoveries of objects in precious metal. To avoid falling under the law,the webmasters of the forums and the editorial staffs of the detection journals take care to recall in small print and footnotes some elements of the regulations. An increasingly abundant literature, mainly works presented as guides or manuals [26-28] are made available to detectors and sometimes sold directly by detector dealers. The proliferation of publications encouraging the discovery of treasures also contributes to this craze. G. Demaretz in a book mentions for example that more than 350 treasures are found annually in France [29]. Many websites follow this same logic, like the couloir du net website, the title of which is perfectly suggestive: "lost, buried and forgotten treasures" or even on Topito.com,the “Top 10 treasures that remain to be found in France”.
Some even embark on the publication of works with legal claims intended to provide protection to detectorists [30-31]. The situation remains paradoxical. On the one hand, a repressive legislative arsenal consolidated by a synergy of several codes; on the other, merchants, a specialized press and forums of detectors who regularly publish sensational articles which is explained by the fact that the democratization of these devices today represents a real financial market. This is increasing steadily as a result of an increase in the range of devices with many associated items (clothes, pointers, pickaxes, tools for cleaning objects, books, maps, etc.) and new products,for example for a few months the magnet fishing which allows to go to the conquest of new spaces (rivers and lakes) not without risk for the prospectors who uncover munitions of the last two world conflicts and directly expose their lives.
This market gives birth to a real economic war between the various manufacturers, the resellers and gives rise to conflicts with the users whose comments on the social networks show the vigor. It is in this dynamic that the multiplication of rallies takes place in recent years. These events bring together hundreds of people for one or more days. They are organized with the official aim of finding previously hidden tokens. The key to these events, the organizers offer many prizes, including detection equipment and even for a rally scheduled to take place in October 2019 in the south of France, a car and up to 50,000 euros in prizes.
Beyond the obligation to undertake administrative procedures before carrying out prospecting with a metal detector, there is the question of whether the use outside of the methodological principles of archeology does or does not damage the heritage. The answer to this question is provided by the appliance merchants themselves with the publication of technical data. The results of tests and comparative tables between the different brands of detectors are regularly published, in particular on the forums. We can give here as an example the survey carried out by the excavator between 2005 and 2015. This survey is based on taking into account five main criteria (depth, discrimination, sound reproduction / responsiveness / handling / versatility) .The device which obtains the best evaluation (65%) is sold at a price of 999 euros. From these different experiments, it appears that these devices today detect a currency up to 40 cm; a medium-sized metal mass (volume of a can) up to 70 cm and a large mass up to two meters deep. To make better use of these devices, manuals have been written and articles presented on dedicated forums widely distributed to detectorists (Metal Detector, Pringault Detection, Le site du jardinier). To promote the lucrative detection market, promotional offers are regularly launched and new products announced. On the Garret.com site,we can read for example about a new device "its depth of detection can" give life "to apparently exhausted sites or find new sites"; representatives of major brands of detectors come from abroad to extol the performance of products during rallies like the “Diggers”. The steady drop in the entry-level price of these devices is also a reason for this growing success.
The development of the internet has greatly amplified the circuits of exchange and dissemination of information between users of a metal detector with the posting of videos published on YouTube with sometimes several thousand views, discussions on the forums and on Facebook in particular. It is now obvious, detection has become a real fact of society. There is also an increase in the number of detection associations at regional or national level (see the interactive map of associations published in 2018 on the Facebook site “les Poëleux”) and federations. They are distributed throughout the national territory.The facts recalled above are evidence against the discourse conveyed by the detectorists who regularly claims that their main objective is to clear the land, as proof the videos published by certain participants on YouTube
Archeology is a unique approach which must allow, through appropriate techniques, to apprehend things from the past. From this perspective, not only the conditions of discovery of an object matter, but also its entire environment, the context, the study of which is based on the principle of a stratigraphic investigation. For decades, the archaeologist has known that he can extract a great deal of information by meticulous examination and according to multidisciplinary approaches to the earth that conceals the artefacts. This look, carried by specialists, is essential for a better understanding of the excavated site, but also often to better understand the function of the object and its value for its users at the time.The artefacts and ecofacts uncovered constitute for the scientific world fundamental databases for the reconstruction of societies from the past. As with decrypting a crime scene, all the clues brought to light during a search contribute to a better perception of the historical facts studied. Everyone knows that to excavate is to destroy and this principle applies to all teams, it is obvious that justifies that we privilege the conservation of sites to their explorations. Keeping the soil archives in situ also means offering future generations of researchers the possibility of undertaking studies using technologies and knowledge that are currently unknown.It is with these facts in mind that one should look with concern at the loss of data as a result of improper procedures. On January 22, 2014, the France Presse agency announced in a press release that more than 500,000 archaeological objects were looted each year in France [32]. For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.For my part, based on a compilation of data visible on forums and various other sites viewed for several years, I was able to estimate at more than 2.4 million the number of objects (coins, miscellaneous objects, pellets of seals, fibulae, jewelry, militaria, etc.) which may be of interest to history or archeology which are illegally exhumed annually on national territory.
The actors of this clandestine research present diverse profiles. Prospectors themselves establish a classification into four groups: history buffs, leisure prospectors, free electrons and looters who, as we have seen in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region, for some do not hesitate to resume this tort activity after a judicial conviction. On the UNDEFEM site who provide some advice among which not to follow up “on prospectors who tell you that they are on the right track and ask you to accompany them. Good luck is nothing other than an archaeological site. ” The survey carried out on our initiative in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region from 2015 [23-35], the first carried out systematically on the scale of an administrative region,allowed to show the extent of the detection phenomenon and to deliver the first reliable statistical data. Among the 1,000 people identified as practicing detection, more than 600 do so on a regular basis, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.more than 600 do it regularly, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.more than 600 do it regularly, that is to say daily, with prospecting times of up to several hours a day and several times a week. Finally, we can assess for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region more than 5,000 hectares explored (plowed land, meadows and wooded areas) each year.
The age pyramid ranges from adolescents to octogenarians, as we have seen during legal proceedings in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region since 2015 [33]. This regional survey shows that 90% of prospectors are men; 70% are grouped in the 30/40 age group. If all social categories are concerned, the detectorists are for about 60% of workers and craftsmen. In this panel, we find "brave fathers of families" who, by taste for history and adventure, practice alone or with their families, detection no doubt animated by the desire to one day discover a treasure in the image reports read in detection journals. This quest to discover a fabulous treasure is, without a doubt,the result of images inscribed in the collective imagination that continue today to give the media of the archaeologist indefectably associated with the myth of Indiana Jones and the discovery of lost civilizations. For these prospectors, it is easy to demonstrate the damage produced by such actions on the archaeological heritage. These have indeed nothing in common with those who practice this activity first and foremost, to trade in their finds. Experience has shown that after a reminder of the law, a certain number of them cease this activity, others join excavation teams and contribute voluntarily to the study of heritage in the framework of programmed research that s is a search or prospecting.
To try to put a stop to these plunderings of archaeological sites without any relation with an alleged action of depollution of the grounds or a leisure activity, between 2015 and 2019 more than a hundred of complaints and reports under article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the regional archeology service of the regional directorate of cultural affairs of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur with the courts during the past four years. 55 searches were carried out [34,35] (Figure 2).
All were positive, leading to the seizure
of more than 25,000 archaeological objects
with a market value estimated at more than
2 million euros. These legal proceedings
reveal that among the accused persons,
around 20% traded in archaeological objects
with, in part, purchases and sales from
abroad, resulting in greater confusion,
even an impossibility to identify with
certainty. objects from regional looting.
On the basis of the investigations, 24
judgments were pronounced with prison terms
ranging from 2 months to 18 months,
suspended for a first conviction, with
fines between 1,000 and 9,000 euros, on
final seizure. detection equipment and
archaeological goods for the benefit of the
State.
The first results of the study carried out in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region show the extent of the damage caused by these wild surveys in total contradiction with public action which aims to better protect the national archaeological heritage, in particular through to the preventive archeology system. It seems obvious that if no educational and repressive measures are pursued to try to curb this phenomenon, at the rate we know today, within a generation it will be 3,000 years of history of metallurgy that will be definitively lost or very badly damaged by these untimely scouring.This observation is all the more worrying as territories such as those of the Southern Alps were already strongly impacted by poorly conducted excavations during the 18th and 19th centuries, the result of which is limited today to collections of heterogeneous exploded objects. between several museums and private collections.
Consequently, repression remains unfortunately necessary and a priority to enforce the law and try to limit these clandestine practices denounced in France since the 1970s by archaeologists and archaeological associations, in particular the association Halte au pillage archaeological and historical heritage (HAPPAP), because they generate a gray and black market in antiques and often join the international traffic of archaeological cultural goods. The financial stakes that arise from prospecting activity can even lead to assassinations. In 2016 was judged in Laon (Aisne) at the assizes, a murder case whose origin was a fact of detection and an unfair sharing of the proceeds of a sale between the members of a small group of detectorists [3.36 ].
A repressive approach like France is undertaken by many other countries (e.g. Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Colombia) as evidenced by press articles echoing arrests and searches . This repressive approach is poles apart from what has been practiced since the 1990s, in the United Kingdom from which recently Mr. Lewis [37] has learned some lessons. The discovery figures, published by English prospectors, reveal the extent of this activity and the spectacular nature of the finds presented as an example to French detectorists. These are either treasures or monetary deposits, or isolated or batch objects made of precious metal (gold or silver). At the same time,it was noted that the practice of detection had no positive action on the development of scientific research and the consolidation of archaeological employment. Indeed, detection finds only very rarely give rise to more in-depth scientific research. In 2009 a document published by the company Oxford Archeology drew up a state of the question [38]. This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.
The collaboration between archaeologists and the users of a detector is a question of international scope [39,40]. Of course it is not the function of the tool which is in question here, but its use which does not meet the elementary rules of good practice in archeology. In our opinion, giving credit to the users of detectors cannot currently receive a positive response for several reasons. The first is that today archeology is a profession that can only be practiced after a solid university education and practical learning. Second, because in most cases there remains doubt as to the precise place of discovery and various elementary data such as the depth of burial, the nature of the land allowing an archaeological interpretation (eg:level of occupation, abandonment, voluntary deposit). This approximation in the rendering of information can sometimes be voluntary on the part of the informant for the sake of jealously guarding the place potentially rich in subsequent discoveries. It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.
This doubt as to the origin of the discovery is sufficient, it seems to me, to dismiss this information. This documentary weakness would inevitably be found later in scientific publications. To take into account these discoveries in the same way as a discovery carried out in a scientific excavation would be to give credit to a practice which is the opposite of contemporary archeology and its ethics. The archaeologists who could not resist this temptation try to hide the thing by indicating in a roundabout way “anonymous information” or “private collection”. It also happened that these discoveries were formalized, by attributing them without decisive argument, to more or less old series coming from official excavations. Finally, and this is a major argument,archaeological teams cannot be asked to respond to methodological requirements evaluated a priori and a posteriori by expert commissions and accept without reservation the introduction into the corpus made up of data from looting. To do so is obviously an encouragement or a recognition of the usefulness of a practice which, once again, has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.
In the end, it is by pursuing educational and repressive actions head-on that, collectively within the framework of our responsibilities and our professional commitments, we will be better able to guarantee the protection of archives on the ground. It is to this collective ambition that we must devote ourselves to avoid that, under the fallacious pretext of a so-called leisure activity, unfounded in law, important elements of our shared memory are erased and deprive future generations of 'part of their History. Let us dare a parallel here, would we accept that anyone performs a surgical procedure without initial training or takes care of the maintenance of the engines of an airplane? Certainly not! Why should it be otherwise for the study of heritage which remains the link for all peoples with their origins.
The figures today that can be gathered from the exploitation of the various sources accessible on the Internet plead without reserve to consider as a priority the search for a solution that guarantees the conservation of the archaeological heritage by combining education, ethics and repression . Without taking into account this issue of regular looting of sites, it is insidiously that a large part of the national heritage disappears before our eyes. This is the reason why, there can be no question of letting this activity propagate which one must assimilate without reserve under French law to delinquency. This reflection therefore keeps all the topicality of the recommendations made by the National Council for Archaeological Research (CNRA), namely:
- Do not use a detector without authorization, -
Do not collaborate with persons not authorized by the State.
- be vigilant about the possible consequences of the communication,
- do not mention, or refer, in its publications, to furniture of dubious origin ("gray furniture"), resulting from illicit discoveries, in order not to encourage looting [12].
The figures that have been gathered in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region in recent years reinforce the direction adopted by the national scientific community supported by legislation that has not ceased to be consolidated for thirty years. This firm position against prospectors is part of the history of national archeology which is practiced today in a professional framework according to suitable methodologies and a practice which is the subject of evaluation, which these are prospecting projects or excavations. These guidelines, based on a national scientific program established by the CNRA, constitute the basis of a shared ethics responsible and essential for the conduct of scientific studies,but also for the protection of archaeological remains which is the responsibility of the State.
The first results of the study carried out in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region show the extent of the damage caused by these wild surveys in total contradiction with public action which aims to better protect the national archaeological heritage, in particular through to the preventive archeology system. It seems obvious that if no educational and repressive measures are pursued to try to curb this phenomenon, at the rate we know today, within a generation it will be 3,000 years of history of metallurgy that will be definitively lost or very badly damaged by these untimely scouring.This observation is all the more worrying as territories such as those of the Southern Alps were already strongly impacted by poorly conducted excavations during the 18th and 19th centuries, the result of which is limited today to collections of heterogeneous exploded objects. between several museums and private collections.
Consequently, repression remains unfortunately necessary and a priority to enforce the law and try to limit these clandestine practices denounced in France since the 1970s by archaeologists and archaeological associations, in particular the association Halte au pillage archaeological and historical heritage (HAPPAP), because they generate a gray and black market in antiques and often join the international traffic of archaeological cultural goods. The financial stakes that arise from prospecting activity can even lead to assassinations. In 2016 was judged in Laon (Aisne) at the assizes, a murder case whose origin was a fact of detection and an unfair sharing of the proceeds of a sale between the members of a small group of detectorists [3.36 ].
A repressive approach like France is undertaken by many other countries (e.g. Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Colombia) as evidenced by press articles echoing arrests and searches . This repressive approach is poles apart from what has been practiced since the 1990s, in the United Kingdom from which recently Mr. Lewis [37] has learned some lessons. The discovery figures, published by English prospectors, reveal the extent of this activity and the spectacular nature of the finds presented as an example to French detectorists. These are either treasures or monetary deposits, or isolated or batch objects made of precious metal (gold or silver). At the same time,it was noted that the practice of detection had no positive action on the development of scientific research and the consolidation of archaeological employment. Indeed, detection finds only very rarely give rise to more in-depth scientific research. In 2009 a document published by the company Oxford Archeology drew up a state of the question [38]. This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.This document was distributed in France in 2010 and commented through detector sites, notably Detect +.
The collaboration between archaeologists and the users of a detector is a question of international scope [39,40]. Of course it is not the function of the tool which is in question here, but its use which does not meet the elementary rules of good practice in archeology. In our opinion, giving credit to the users of detectors cannot currently receive a positive response for several reasons. The first is that today archeology is a profession that can only be practiced after a solid university education and practical learning. Second, because in most cases there remains doubt as to the precise place of discovery and various elementary data such as the depth of burial, the nature of the land allowing an archaeological interpretation (eg:level of occupation, abandonment, voluntary deposit). This approximation in the rendering of information can sometimes be voluntary on the part of the informant for the sake of jealously guarding the place potentially rich in subsequent discoveries. It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.It can also be simply the result of a lack of training, raising awareness that one of the major assets of a discovery is the knowledge of its burial context.
This doubt as to the origin of the discovery is sufficient, it seems to me, to dismiss this information. This documentary weakness would inevitably be found later in scientific publications. To take into account these discoveries in the same way as a discovery carried out in a scientific excavation would be to give credit to a practice which is the opposite of contemporary archeology and its ethics. The archaeologists who could not resist this temptation try to hide the thing by indicating in a roundabout way “anonymous information” or “private collection”. It also happened that these discoveries were formalized, by attributing them without decisive argument, to more or less old series coming from official excavations. Finally, and this is a major argument,archaeological teams cannot be asked to respond to methodological requirements evaluated a priori and a posteriori by expert commissions and accept without reservation the introduction into the corpus made up of data from looting. To do so is obviously an encouragement or a recognition of the usefulness of a practice which, once again, has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.has nothing in common with a professional ethics of contemporary archeology.
In the end, it is by pursuing educational and repressive actions head-on that, collectively within the framework of our responsibilities and our professional commitments, we will be better able to guarantee the protection of archives on the ground. It is to this collective ambition that we must devote ourselves to avoid that, under the fallacious pretext of a so-called leisure activity, unfounded in law, important elements of our shared memory are erased and deprive future generations of 'part of their History. Let us dare a parallel here, would we accept that anyone performs a surgical procedure without initial training or takes care of the maintenance of the engines of an airplane? Certainly not! Why should it be otherwise for the study of heritage which remains the link for all peoples with their origins.
The figures today that can be gathered from the exploitation of the various sources accessible on the Internet plead without reserve to consider as a priority the search for a solution that guarantees the conservation of the archaeological heritage by combining education, ethics and repression . Without taking into account this issue of regular looting of sites, it is insidiously that a large part of the national heritage disappears before our eyes. This is the reason why, there can be no question of letting this activity propagate which one must assimilate without reserve under French law to delinquency. This reflection therefore keeps all the topicality of the recommendations made by the National Council for Archaeological Research (CNRA), namely:
- Do not use a detector without authorization, -
Do not collaborate with persons not authorized by the State.
- be vigilant about the possible consequences of the communication,
- do not mention, or refer, in its publications, to furniture of dubious origin ("gray furniture"), resulting from illicit discoveries, in order not to encourage looting [12].
The figures that have been gathered in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region in recent years reinforce the direction adopted by the national scientific community supported by legislation that has not ceased to be consolidated for thirty years. This firm position against prospectors is part of the history of national archeology which is practiced today in a professional framework according to suitable methodologies and a practice which is the subject of evaluation, which these are prospecting projects or excavations. These guidelines, based on a national scientific program established by the CNRA, constitute the basis of a shared ethics responsible and essential for the conduct of scientific studies,but also for the protection of archaeological remains which is the responsibility of the State.