Archaeological Pillage in France: Le Monde

In France, according to the Le Monde article by Viviane Thivent ('Archéologie : la France, zone de pillage' 5th June 2014), there are 25000 to 80000 metal detectorists of which about 4000 are very active on forums and sites selling artefacts. In 2011 and 2012, 25 000 to 35 000 metal detectors were sold each year. Yet they can be legally used only for certain things, according to French law (L’article L. 542-1 du code du patrimoine datant de 1989):

« Nul ne peut utiliser du matériel permettant la détection d'objets métalliques à l'effet de recherches de monuments et d’objets pouvant intéresser la préhistoire, l'histoire, l'art ou l'archéologie, sans avoir, au préalable, obtenu une autorisation administrative. »  -

It would seem very few artefact hunters are getting such permits:

"D’après cette association [HAPPAH] et le ministère de la culture, « à cause de la crise » ou de « l’appât du gain », le pillage archéologique serait en plein essor en France.

Unlike their jobsworth British colleagues, intent on "partnering" artefact hunters, French archaeologists are trying to combat the erosion of the archaeological record by this activity, but are frustrated by the impotence of the law. Nevertheless they have managed to get a comparatively large number of illicit items removed from online portals such as eBay (I wonder how this compares with the results due to the efforts of UK archaeologists):

Sur ce site, 8 000 annonces ont déjà été retirées depuis 2012. Comme celle présentant une boucle d’oreille en or datant du premier âge du fer et ayant atteint les 10 000 euros. Ou celle d’une rouelle celtique, vieille de 2 500 ans, mise à prix à 36 000 euros. Aucune ne s’est soldée par une vente… ni par une saisie.

And with that in mind, here's one for Silas Brown, those who say they want to go after 'nighthawks' and the thoughtless clown who sells artefacts for melting down as scrap and says "God lets me":

Ensuite, il y a le « droit du sol ». Les objets archéologiques terrestres appartiennent, au moins en partie, au propriétaire du terrain sur lequel ils ont été trouvés. Sans la provenance exacte de l’objet, pas de propriétaire, et sans ce dernier il est plus difficile d’établir une infraction. Ce qui pourrait changer, comme l’a plusieurs fois suggéré la ministre de la Culture, Aurélie Filippetti, à propos de la nouvelle loi sur le patrimoine : la propriété des objets archéologiques terrestres pourrait ainsi être transférée à l’Etat, ce qui est déjà le cas pour le patrimoine immergé.

And when is England going to follow? It would save ENORMOUS sums on Treasure rewards. Meanwhile, other archaeologists, frustrated by the rate of loss they see happening under their noses while the law is ineffective want to work on the illegally-obtained material, but cannot. This is a problem right across Europe where there are laws protecting the archaeological record from unauthorised interference: "Il est primordial d’harmoniser le discours des archéologues, notamment vis-à-vis de la communauté des “détectoristes”», but then how can we do that when archaeologists themselves are loathe to discuss the subject in any reasonable manner with other archaeologists holding other views? Yet in UK circles, the topic of metal detecting and its longterm effects on the preservation of the archaeological record might as well be taboo for all the airing it gets in archaeological discourse these days.

Anyway the French archaeological site riflers want a system like England's PAS to allow them to get on with emptying the archaeological record of the country into their pockets. Roger Bland is quoted twice  (but a zero has been missed off one of his self-gratulatory wotta-lotta-stuff-we-got figures). I love the way she slipped in "« Le cas du trésor de Staffordshire est objectivement une catastrophe, s’indigne l’archéologue Jean-Paul Demoule" right in the middle. Yes, yes it is (not was, is). That bloke in Poland (principal opposant à cette réforme) is also quoted twice. I did not really say what I am reported as saying, you can see what I sent the journalist in answer to her questions here.  This often happens, journalists have to make sense of masses of material, and you can see she tried to get as many different points of view into an article she had to write in a few days, and I think she got the argument out in the open in a form that generally makes sense. And because I am basically a nice guy, I'll say that it is my heartfelt belief that Roger Bland did NOT say that because "90% of metal detectorists' finds come from ploughsoil" that it does not matter  (the figure is actually 85% of those where landuse is recorded).