Presented as an inoffensive hobby that is motivated by the interest for past and history, metal detecting represents an invisible danger for heritage. Since the passage of a 1989 law, it is prohibited in France without having an official authorization. However, there are loopholes in the legislation and the law is regularly flouted, even if the last years saw trials and condemnations. Detectorists claim they are not looters and want to participate in archaeological research, but there is a twilight zone between a „good detectorist“ and a nighthawk. Despite the restrictive legislation, it seems that metal-detecting still will be practiced and we will have to deal with it. Therefore, some French archaeologists agree to record the detectorists‘ finds to avoid the loss of data. In so doing, however, they unwittingly become a crucial link in a vicious circle of looting and selling the common past. They provide to the detectorists a justification to always dig deeper to seek artefacts, and they participate in the black market by giving an added value to detectorists’ finds. The protection of our heritage will be efficient only when these archaeologists stop breaking the rules by practicing an „object archaeology“ like the 19th century scholars.

No abstract

The practice of metal detection has developed considerably over the past forty years. Taking into account the risk that it posed to the archaeological heritage, public authorities, following international recommendations, have put implemented legislation to try to reduce its impact. Some nations such as England and Wales, and recently Belgium, nevertheless consider users of metal detectors more as research assistants than as a real risk to the archaeological heritage and encourage them to report their findings to the competent authorities. In addition, discoverers of exceptional objects can be rewarded financially. In France, where legislation requires administrative authorization to use a metal detector, declaratory systems are models for the detector user community who have dreamed of “active collaboration” between themselves and archaeologists. Some scientists, arguing that illegal detection is a reality that cannot be combated, nevertheless choose to record and study the discoveries of clandestine users of metal detectors, seeing in this the possibility of “saving what can be saved”. However, various examples from current events and the media show that, far from its original purpose, this practice provides a scientific validation for the detection of metals and a market value for the objects discovered, thus creating a demand for the looting of heritage sites.

No abstract