France. It is not uncommon to come across a walker walking along a beach or a field equipped with a metal detector. Increasingly widespread, detection practiced as a hobby divides. While some view the activity as fun and harmless when carried out in good faith, others are concerned about the possible archaeological damage it would cause.
But what about the law? Is an amateur allowed to use a metal detector? In France, a single legislative text regulates its use: article L. 542-1, included in the heritage code since 2016 and resulting from a 1989 law which stipulates 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 first, obtained administrative authorization. Only its use for archaeological purposes is therefore regulated, nothing explicitly mentions recreational detection. “Since the law does not expressly prohibit it, it is therefore legally authorized,” supports Me Antoine Béguin, lawyer at the Angers bar. It is therefore authorized to purchase a detector and use it, but not for archaeological research without prior agreement. This is where the problem lies since for some, using a detector is implicitly equivalent to doing research. An argument that Marc Méreaux, president of the French Federation of Metal Detection (FFDM), categorically refutes: “When we use a detector for leisure, it is not for research. We get some fresh air, we find lost objects, we clean up. »
Risks inherent to the practice of detection
However, it is common for a metal detector user (UDM), even with good intentions, to find an old object. Another sticking point then arises: the definition of a property of historical or archaeological interest. Because here too vagueness reigns, article L. 542-1 not specifying it. Generally, we accept the definition adopted in a circular from the Ministry of Justice in 2017, which brings together “any object dating from before 1875 or relating to the two world conflicts”. The meaning is broad, including both the Neolithic arrowhead and the identity plate of a soldier from the Second World War. “It’s absurd, believes Marc Méreaux. You can be prosecuted for having dug up a copper coin of Napoleon III, even though there are millions of copies everywhere. »
This lack of legal framework leaves the door open to interpretation. “It is a legal vagueness which is maintained, since it is not possible to prevent detection, says Me Antoine Béguin. On one side there is the position of prospectors, on the other that of archaeologists, and the two have been almost irreconcilable for more than thirty years.» In fact, many historians and archaeologists are alarmed by the repercussions of such a practice, arguing that any site potentially contains archaeological riches. Thus, even if certain areas are prohibited from detection – listed archaeological sites, classified or inscribed sites, national parks, military properties, etc. – the very act of detection would carry inherent risks. Without scientific method, the object found could be damaged or even destroyed, while being isolated from its archaeological context. Its extraction also perforates the data-rich stratigraphy of the terrain. A position supported by the Ministry of Culture, which reconfirmed in November 2024 (in a response to a parliamentarian’s written question) that in the name of “protection of archaeological heritage” notably, “the modification or relaxation of the legislation in force aimed at making a distinction between archaeological detection and recreational research (…) is not possible.”
In practice, the situation is complex. If a detectorist finds an archaeological object, he must declare it to the town hall or to the Drac (regional directorate of Cultural Affairs), in accordance with article L. 531-14. However, in doing so he exposes himself to prosecution. According to Me Antoine Béguin, “Even if this is not what the law says, the authorities concluded that administrative authorization was required in each case to use a metal detector.” The object is first seized for a study carried out by the archaeological services, following which a search can take place at the detectorist’s home. Obviously, the more archaeologically interesting the object found, the greater the repercussions will be. The person risks being summoned before the criminal court, with a fine (often of the order of a few hundred euros) and confiscation of their equipment (knowing that the price of a detector varies between 200 and 2,000 euros on average). “Most people will therefore choose not to declare the object or to omit the fact that it was found with a detector,” concludes the lawyer. These cases, handled on a case-by-case basis, also depend on the sensitivity of regional conservatives, prefects or prosecutors. Some regions – like Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur – will condemn metal detection more severely than others.
This lack of fairness in the application of the law is felt nationally, but also more widely in Europe. Because if certain countries like Italy or Spain adopt a position similar to that of France with regard to leisure detection, others do not have the same approach. In several northern countries and more recently in the Flemish Region of Belgium, for example, the legislation is much more tolerant: if it wants to recover the object, the State offers financial compensation to UDMs, based on the model of the “Treasure Act ” English. Finds have multiplied there: in 2021, twenty-two gold objects were discovered by an amateur in Denmark (today kept in the Vejle museums), then in 2023, it was a Norwegian who found rare gold jewelry dating from around 500 AD. Inevitably, this more permissive model is also debated: while some welcome the benefits of collaboration between scientists and amateurs, others are concerned about an increase in heritage damage.