A group of French metal detectorists (from ANDL, the National Association for the Metal Detection of Leisure) has started sending details of their finds for recording at the Roman Legion Museum of Caerleon, in Wales, asking for an “archaeological asylum”. That’s the details of their finds, note, not the objects themselves – they are keeping those for themselves not giving them to the museum.
(Image credit – Happah)
Voici le patrimoine français, illégalement excavé par moi. The coins I will take home for myself. The knowledge I will send to les rosbifs. Je suis un unsung hero de France!
It’s a bit of a stunt, aimed mainly at the French authorities, who they hope to “shame” on the grounds that metal detecting for archaeological artefacts shouldn’t be illegal over there. The only impact it is likely to have in Britain is that the Caerleon museum will lift the phone to the British police who will lift the phone to their French counterparts.
Or so one might think. But no!
Enter UKDFD (the British detectorists’ breakaway database for those who won’t record with PAS) : “UKDFD has offered a clone of its database to the French guys and also host it for them“
In case UKDFD is unfamiliar with Article L 542 of the French Patrimony Code, it says: Nobody can use equipment that allows the detection of metal objects , relating to seeking monuments or objects that could relate to prehistory, art or archaeology, without having, in advance, obtained an administrative authorisation delivered in relation to the qualifications of the seeker & the nature & methods of the research.
In the circumstances one might have expected UKDFD to advise these people that if French law tells them not to put leurs patts grossières on French heritage they should simply do what they are told. Sadly, that is not the case since UKDFD, which constantly complains it has been branded “irresponsible” by all of Britain’s archaeological and heritage organisations is proposing to aid, abet and host a database of looted artefacts supplied by French criminals!
The Heritage Journal 
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
28/03/2009 at 13:34
Jorg Lueke
Archaeology’s hubris has become so great that citizens are forced to seek asylum for their find information. Field archaeology isn’t suited for every artifact, if more archaeologists could adapt to the 21st or at least latter 20th century we would all be better off.
28/03/2009 at 15:23
heritageaction
We are not archaeologists Mr Leuke, we are ordinary people. So the hubris of which you complain is not confined to archaeologists but extends to members of society in general. Which puts the insult in a rather different light. Exploiters and their customers versus the hubristic rest. Vive le hubris.
I am not sure why you refer to criminals merely as “citizens”. Should not looters be properly described in this discussion?
“Field archaeology isn’t suited for every artifact”
We find this puzzling. Which artefacts are you thinking of? And how is looting them or randomly harvesting them for pleasure or profit without benefit of professional, trained involvement a better way of dealing with them?
If the methodology falls short of archaeological best practice, if the knowledge is undelivered or less than adequate and if the objects aren’t offered to museums but are sold for personal benefit how are we “all better off” compared with field archaeology conducted by hubristic archaeologists who are guilty of none of those things?
And finally, which artefacts, specifically, are best entrusted to the care of common criminals?
29/03/2009 at 13:15
Paul Barford
I would like to thank Heritage Action for showing that handling in a sustainable manner the fragile and finite resource that is the world’s archaeological heritage is a concern for everyone, not just professional archaeologists and certainly not just selfish portable antiquity collectors.
Mr Lueke insists that its (nineteenth century?) “archaeological hubris” that lies behind this concern – I say its the artefact hunters’ complete arrogance that is at the root of this. What do the French looters want to achieve by “recording” in England that they’ve looted a French site ? It is quite clear from what they themselves write that this is motivated by self-interest (keeping the illegally obtained finds for themselves) and motivated politically (trying to provoke an official reaction) and not any desire to increase the French people’s (or anyone else’s) knowledge of the past.
The National Museum of Wales has no right whatsoever getting involved in anything like that. Refusing to have anything to do with this would not be “hubris”, it is obeying the law – a law that exists for a very good reason – to avoid looters digging up archaeological sites for collectables for entertainment and profit.
Mr Lueke, if a member of the Twin Cities Ancient Coin Club over in the USA went out with a spade and dug up some native American graves on Federal land outside your town and took out the nicer finds, chucked the bones and other elements away, and hid the artefacts away at home without telling anyone (or maybe put them on eBay) and deposited a “record” of them with Britain’s UKDFD, would you, as President of that club say they were acting “responsibly”? Or would you say those good citizens had struck a blow against archaeological “hubris” and the arrogance of those native American groups that want to stop your members digging up their great grandparents graves? Do you have any metal detectorists in your coin club? Do you have any pot diggers in your club? If pot diggers and grave robbers from your region were reading this here, is there anything you would like to say to them?
There really is no difference between that and the laws which exist in many regions of the world (like France) to prevent profiteers treating the archaeological record, the record of the past of the region, as a quarry for collectables.
How narrow minded does someone have to be not to see that?
Paul Barford
03/04/2009 at 08:24
Nathan Elkins
“Field archaeology isn’t suited for every artifact, if more archaeologists could adapt to the 21st or at least latter 20th century we would all be better off.” — Jorg Lueke
I wonder if he really believes this statement. In its earliest days archaeology was concerned about getting pretty things to haul off to museums and excavation methods had not developed, something we would essentially call “treasure hunting” today. Since the second half of the 20th century archaeological method has advanced significantly and its goals have changed significantly from two hundred years ago. Archaeology has moved into the 21st century, the indiscriminate market and self-centered commercial interest has not.
Archaeology and knowledge of the past would not be advanced by conducting an excavation and discarding “insignificant” finds like pot sherds and coins. In fact, such finds are essential to understanding an archaeological site and the past. If he really believes coins are not a significant part of the archaeological record, I would suggest he has not paid any attention to numismatic literature over the past 60 years, and especially that of continental Europe in the past 30 years. There is an entire monograph series solely devoted to the study and analysis of the “insignificant” finds in archaeological context. There’s definitely some hubris in the room, but its coming from those who want scienitific inquiry and method to devolve to make an indiscriminate and self-interest market happy. Outlandish statements like the one quoted above demonstrate the proud ignorance with which some people enter this “debate.”
06/04/2009 at 15:41
heritageaction
“Archaeology and knowledge of the past would not be advanced by conducting an excavation and discarding “insignificant” finds like pot sherds and coins.”
Indeed it wouldn’t. Yet where do the coins that come onto the market for Mr Lueke to buy come from but from an army of people with spades and metal detectors who are entirely selective in what they take and what they discard – precisely because people like Mr Lueke wish to buy certain items and not others! That, presumably, is the sort of People’s Fieldwork he recommends.
And of course, if he is primarily in the knowledge-gathering business one wonders why he is willing (presumably) to pay more for the shiny bits!
No. It doesn’t add up.
07/05/2009 at 23:04
Rob Moulis
Would it not be better for archaeologists to work with metal detectorists to help discover the past? An interest in history and artefacts is not the sole preserve of archaeologists. I’m reminded of some Time Team episodes that have come about because a metal detectorist found some interesting objects in a field somewhere, where nobody knew there was anything there before (even the professionals). This has led to the discovery of settlement sites that were previously completely unknown. I just wonder how much archaeology has been lost in France due to development (or the plough) on unknown sites. Quite a lot I would suggest. Sure, in any group there are always few rogue elements, but by and large most metal detectorists are responsible and follow the code of ethics. Do you ban all cars because some people do stupid things in them?
How much does a proper professional archaeological dig cost? Thousands of euros? In these tight economic times is there funding around for archaeologists to do their thing? The metal detecting community in France represents a valuable untapped resource. Its seems to me very short-sighted to not take advantage of that wonderful resource.
I would be interested to know what the French funding allocation was for archaeology say 5 years ago compared to the latest allocation (in real terms). The importance a country attaches to its archaeology can be gauged by how much money their prepared to put into it, I believe or whether the government is prepared to halt a profitable development to save some history. By engaging constructively with the metal detecting community, rather than shunning them, much more information about the past will be learned and in a shorter time, just as it is in Britain.
I’m sure most archaeologists in France are nice people. I’m also sure most metal detectorists in France are nice people. Why can’t these two groups of nice people come together in a spirit of harmony and co-operation to work together? It isn’t that hard, really. Archaeologists need to get over their superiority complex and recognise that there are others with an interest in this stuff who want to contribute. MDs should be encouraged to join clubs and those clubs should be community minded, ethical clubs with links to local universities and schools. This seems to me to be the best way to move forward.
09/05/2009 at 09:58
Paul Barford
I think if Rob Moulis wants to propose to the French government that they’ve got it all wrong, perhaps he should lobby them and not Heritage Action in a country where – for better or worse – “archaeologists work with metal detectorists to help discover the past” (as indeed the French permit system is intended to do).
Surely in the French determining their OWN “way to move forward” have already looked at the British system… and may well have decided that what they see looks like a a sort of “lawless banana republic”, and it may well be that in their perception, the benefits really do not balance the losses. Mr Moulis might like to read a forthcoming book by Nigel Swift and myself before answering that.
The point is though that the law is the law, would Mr Moulis advise French metal detectorists intent on persuading the French people that they are responsible scholarly people interested in the past to obey the law, or break it?
12/05/2009 at 00:29
Rob Moulis
If the French decide the benefits do not balance the losses then that’s fine by me. Their country, their decision. I just think they’re wrong but that’s only a hunch of mine – I don’t have detailed facts before me about thefts, losses etc. compared to what’s been found. I might be wrong I admit that. My hunch is based on the view that the more people out there searching for things, the more things will be found. I do not advocate breaking the law. Changes to the law must come from within to be valid. Detectorists have an oppurtunity here to demonstrate good faith by doing the right thing, applying for permits, not stealing etc. One thing I would like to know is if a hundred ordinary detectorists applied for permits how many would be successful? If the permit system is fair then I would expect a non-zero answer. (“as indeed the French permit system is intended to do”). Exactly what qualifications and circumstances are needed to get a permit? If it is so prohibitive that no ordinary detectorist can get a permit then I think there’s a problem – which leads back to my original argument that there are non-professionals out there who want to help but may perhaps be locked out (hence the untapped resource going to waste).
I look forward to the book you allude to and will read it with an open mind and listening to all the arguments. When will it be published?
thankyou.
02/07/2010 at 06:05
Paul Punchard
I live in France and am a member of the AFP Association Francaise de Prospecteurs (the biggest MD club in France), as well as a local club we have started and Rob Moulis has highlighted and made some very sensible comments. To detect here for “artifacts that may be of interest to the heritage of France you need permission from the local Goverment office for your region. To date, I am unaware of 1 single case where permission has been given. Many detectorists therefore get round this by having a signed document from the landowner stating that they are looking for a tractor piece or lost keys, and jewelry etc. In fact our club offers a free service for this type of search and there are many happy documented cases on our website of people being re-united with lost wedding rings, expensive tractor parts, car keys due to the SOS objects Perdu service we offer. Press coverage of this division of our club is common and is a way of promoting the hobby a well in France. Any finds aside of what we are looking for are always shown and offered to the landowner and this has helped to promote the pastime here in France.
Unauthorised detection on known archaeological sites is forbiden of course and quite rightly so. Most of the detectorists I have met here are passionate about history and the heritage of France but most finds go unrecorded because of the archaic system here.
There is soon to be a motorway coming through here and the French Government have recently discovered one of the biggest ever Oppidums ( Gaulic settlements) in the whole of Roman Gaule ( 135 hectares ) . They have only got two years and 6.5 million euros! to “excavate” the site and to be honest it’s chaos, they have around 20 heavy bulldozers removing hundreds of tons of topsoil ( where many finds are of course) and taking it away to be lost forever, as they just do not have the time or interest it seems to examine it. They have of course found the evidence of dwellings and the important part of the site at the new level but if Archaeologists and detectorists could work together, for instance on that site I’m certain the gathered information would give a better understanding of this imortant site. Much of the information of our ancestors heritage would never have come to light if it wasn’t for the work of metal detectorists, and then Staffordshire hoard is a fine example of this. One of our members also worked on a time team dig which came to light due to a chance find by a detectorist. I believe also that The Weeknd wanderers MD club in the Uk found a shallow Saxon Grave a while back in a supermarket car park!
I love archaelogy and I also love metal detecting – I just wish the two weren’t like chalk and cheese!
01/09/2010 at 21:50
Norm
Its funny when i see these comments on damaged historical sites and Paul Barford talking as if he is some kind of expert on who does the damage,
He only concentrates on metal detectorist and all the bad things they do,this guy is 90% Bullshit and 10% glorified grave digger full untruths wind and piss so to speak.
So please do not take any notice of anything he says,as he is big lier,Norm
01/09/2010 at 21:52
Norm
even lies in Poland.
02/09/2010 at 11:21
Paul Barford
This comment seems to be getting way off the topic of the Welsh initiative to give law-breaking French “detectorists” asylum. There are many agencies which damage archaeological sites, one of them, their deliberate and carefree MINING as a source of collectables is one, however, which we can do something about.
Frankly I suspect that Mr “Norm” is totally unable to articulate in coherent terms where what I and many others say about the downside of Britain’s current policies on artefact hunting and artefact collecting is “90%” bluff.
I suggest readers of this blog are hardly likely to take any notice of what is said by people who cannot spell or phrase a comment without missing out the prepositions and replacing them with four-letter crudities.
01/03/2011 at 15:06
M Harrington
Must agree with Norm, about Paul Barford, he is akin to a boil that needs lancing.
Such a clever man, all metal detectorist are far too lowly for him in his lofty world.
01/03/2011 at 17:45
Pat
It does seems likely, if “Norm” is typical of them.
26/03/2011 at 11:13
pete
metal detecting should be banned , you lot go on about nighthawking blah blah ….how many of you go on a farmers land your allowed to go on during the day and dont tell the farmer what you have found !!! loads of yeah do that eh ??? that makes normal metal detectorists who have permission as bad as thoose that dont have permission and who go out nighthawking , metal detecting in the UK ..ban it now or soon , in the end the powers that be, will get round to banning metal detecting in the uk HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER
06/01/2013 at 19:36
bert wallace
i love you guys – – always up for a laugh, nighthawkers, illegall detecting, robbing the farmers, stealing from the nation, thieving from the culture – oh hang on – are we now, not multi-cultural ???? so we do not have a past !!!!!thats what your taught at ucl, or what ever uni spawned such resentment . . . let me put one thing very clear, in 1974, on a field in Kent i was approached by this small insignifcant looking man, who went on to cheer on the loudest of the archaeoligst clan against the use of the metal detector, that little men from the county of the white horse (to this day i still believe he had “small man syndrome”) this is where the term nighthawker was first coined, in retailation for being called ” a bunch of legalised thieves” after they were challanged about thier own collections, as everyone knows, that many of an archaeoligsts have a very fine collection, some to rival many a small muesem, “as is now – as was then” after spending many an hour locked in study, an archaeoligst can not see beyond the text-book, that has clouded thier judgement & outlook. a metal detector is a very usefull tool, used to great effect by the enlightened few, good example being a small workshop site, prior to gravel extraction, ground plans drawn, no metal artefacts came to light after a seven week excavation, last two days a detector was used, i trumpet roman brooch, 23 small coins, pins, etc..etc. within the first hour of finding of the first coin, a date was able to be put on the excavations, and backed up by the rest of the coinage, and prior excavation, so all of this “wailing and knashing of the teeth” and the ” beating of the perverbail archaeoligst chest etc..etc.. is old hat & nothing new, all detectrist were, back then robbers of our heritage, past etc way back then, we were selling on our ill gotten gains on the black market, now e-bay, as for thieving from farmers ? i have never once seen a farmer who is not savy about what is rightfully his or hers, ive seen archaeoligsts thrown of farmers land, becuase most farmers wont put up with the rubbish sprouted about we leave holes the size of open cast mines, stealing all the finds we make, and the farmers never see what is actually found.. many a farmer is pleased to have on display something dug up on thier land, instead of having it claimed by the local archaeoligst, only to buried in the local muesum never to see the light of day again ……. one final thought when a find is removed from its final resting place… covered in crud, full of bronze disease, broken — whatever else,,( how can a final resting place be in ploughsoil, that is moved around every year ?) i could carry on about the condition most artefacts are found in, surely it is best to rescued from the chemicals and modern farming, then left to rot, “becuase that is in effect, what is happening to these artefacts” a bronze roman coin i found in 1970, is stable, and is handled very regular by children, with there sticky fingers, whereas a coin found today has a 99% chance of beings illegible and unstable due to modern farming methiods. you see we could trade insults all day with your point of view thrown in, and mine “in my point of view” i have heard it all before and it will not change, if someone comes up with a good point then i will listen, untill then carry on, i am always up for a laugh from those that suffer from myopia and rather than get off thier thier gluteus maximus moan about people, “that are making a differance” ps what has happened to the new owner of the avbury ring that bulldozed it as it was missng bits ?
07/01/2013 at 01:59
heritageaction
By Avbury do you mean Avebury? And by Avebury do you mean Priddy? And how is that relevant?
Anyhow, if you think the answer to many millions of artefacts not being recorded by your colleagues is “many of an archaeoligsts have a very fine collection, some to rival many a small muesem” then fine.
(Incidentally, we aren’t archaeologists, just people who think detectorists should behave, which rather spoils your case.)
07/01/2013 at 04:37
Paul Barford
Umm, the first sentence ends with “as for thieving from farmers ?” Not a single full stop anywhere.
25/01/2013 at 18:48
Pro Detector
An interesting bit of mud slinging goiing on here! I happened across this website by accident and am a bit taken aback by the attitudes displayed. I am a metal detectorist and am horrified by the comments of some of those who appear to believe they are intelligent people with an interest in history. As in all walks of life, not all metal detectorists are the same. Just as not all archaeologists are the same. I for one show all my finds to the landowners on whose land I detect, I show all my finds to the FLO (who can decide which are worthy of recording and which are significant) and have donated my only treasure find to the local museum (although, 12 months down the line, the museum appears not to have actually received it!!!). Not all detectorists are just out for themselves. However, I am sure that not all archaeologists are quite as professional as they should be. We are all different. However, I firmly believe that overall, the current system in England works well and contributes significantly to our knowledge of history. No system is perfect but, denying detectorists access to their hobby would probably be a very retrograde step.
26/01/2013 at 04:15
heritageaction
We have received hundreds of letters like yours, to the extent we have developed a standard reply:
We can’t see how you proclaiming your personal virtue is relevant as there are more than 8,000 detectorists in England & Wales. Are you seriously trying to imply that the public should disbelieve PAS’s clear statistical evidence that most finds don’t get reported to them? And DCMS’s clear statistical evidence that a pitifully small number of detectorists renounce their Treasure rewards to help museums acquire what they find? And the fact that not one of them has indicated willingness to conduct themselves in accordance with these inarguably ethical parameters: http://www.ethicaldetecting.org.uk/
05/08/2013 at 00:11
David Caplan
All the above claims and counter claims make amusing reading. I know from experience that greed and ignorance are not confined to any one class. A degree in a particular subject gives one an edge, but knowledge obtained and retained, even second-hand, is nevertheless knowledge.
The archaeological fraternity seem singularly uninterested in the topsoil down to plough depth, hence their much televised use of bulldozers. They are basically saying anything not found in an undisturbed layer context is of little interest to them !
Surely the way to tackle such a problem is to pass legislation restricting the manufacture of metal detectors to a given depth. I know there are many factors like ground mineralization and moisture that influence the depth penetration of a signal but, a mean average of say eight to ten inches would be a step in the right direction. Also I know, that like fishermen, detectorists tend to exaggerate the depth at which their finds were made. The majority of finds are made at no more than a few inches.
05/08/2013 at 02:45
Paul Barford
This comment seems to be getting way off the topic of the Welsh initiative to give law-breaking French “detectorists” asylum.
Mr Caplan may be “amused”, but instead of chortling he’d do better to look up some books on archaeological methodology rather than merely relying on what is “much televised”. Excavation is just one of the tools used by archaeology, others rely precisely on the study of the patterns of distribution of material IN the topsoil, evidence which is completely trashed when diagnostic finds are removed without record, no matter whether its four or eight inches down.