FRENCH ARCHAEOLOGY IN TURMOIL

After barely a year’s trial period, the new law on rescue archaeology in France is coming under heavy fire from politicians. Up until early 2001, French law covered the protection of archaeological sites but didn't take into account the funding of rescue archaeology. The few rescue excavations were carried out by the state services with the help of volunteers and amateur societies.

There was a lack of any clear legal framework so developers were treated unequally. The level of funding for an excavation was related to the developers’ capacity to pay rather than the real interest of the site. Following on from the scandal of Rodèze, where the right wing Prime Minister Alain Juppé intervened to stop an excavation deemed by the developer as being ‘too expensive’, French archaeologists managed to fight off proposals for a system of competitive tendering.

A change of government later, and a new law was proposed that brought in an annual budget proportional to the level of development (and thus to the level of site destruction). Money would be allocated depending on the interest of the site. It was clearly stated that rescue archaeology is a research activity and a public service not subject to commercial competition.

A governmental agency - INRAP (Institut de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives) - was created to carry out excavation under the control of the regionally-based state archaeological services. Although other organisations could carry out excavation work with INRAP’s consent, there was no external competition. Funding was based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, with a licence fee (rédévance) levied on certain categories of development. This was a break with the previous system in that it meant that rescue excavation was developer funded without being developer led. The cost of archaeological work was calculated using complex formulae based on site surface area, depth of overburden, depth and nature of stratigraphy etc.

The advantage of the new arrangements was that the funding and the conditions of any given intervention were legally defined, with developers treated more equally. Most INRAP personnel were permanent with some on fixed term contracts to meet specific needs. Pay and conditions were aligned with those of civil servants. Even junior site staff could consider leading a normal life! From the staff’s point of view, there was real status with a career structure and the possibility to develop long term projects integrated with universities.

However, there were disadvantages too. The Byzantine complexity of the procedures created an administrative overload. The funding for evaluations was insufficient. The ‘price’ of a deeply stratified urban site was often far less than its real cost to dig, while large area rural sites were more expensive for developers than under the old system.

The political landslide of April 2002 saw the arrival of a new right-wing coalition. The majority of the laws passed by the previous government (especially concerning the 35 hour week) were liquidated including the new law on rescue archaeology.

In December a group of deputies and senators tried to bring in an amendment to cut developer costs by 50%. This lobby is composed mainly of mayors and other elected representatives, most of whom are also developers. They seized on some of the more extreme cases of expensive excavations to start a campaign of disinformation. Their intention was to abolish INRAP, introduce competitive tendering and return to the good old days of volunteer diggers. The total lack of any opposition was painful. The government instructed the regionally-based archaeological services to reduce their project designs by 25%, catastrophic for evaluations and smaller sites.

With no money coming in, INRAP couldn’t pay all its expenses and came under the administration of the ministry of finance. Its budget barely meets the wages of the 1200 permanent staff. No capital expenditure is possible and no temporary staff can be taken on (usually 300 or so). Meanwhile, the government still required INRAP to respect its obligations and schedules. As a French proverb says: if you want to get rid of your dog, convince everyone it has rabies.

Despite the small numbers spread out over a very large area, INRAP personnel managed to mobilise enough people to stage several protest actions in Paris, including sit-ins at public monuments and government buildings, attracting a good deal of public attention. There was also a campaign of ‘harassment’ of the minister of culture, infiltrating public and official events, virtually forcing him to answer questions and make public policy statements. A 1700 strong protest march at the end of January made national news.

The most important thing is to keep showing that we are active, organised and angry too! Long term, most staff formed impromptu regional working groups to take up political lobbying and contact with the media. In this way, we can counter some of the misinformation spread by the anti- archaeology lobby.

Contacts with our European colleagues have been helpful - for instance the recent All Party Parliamentary report on the state of British archaeology has provided us with reasoned arguments for our protest movement.

Contacts with developers has also been interesting. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not necessarily the cost of an excavation that worries them, but delays. Many of them would prefer to pay a tax and have the archaeological constraints removed rapidly than go back to a system of last minute negotiations which could hold up their projects. A tax is attractive because everyone pays a little and no-one gets lumbered with expensive digs whilst his competitor gets away with nothing.

It has become clear that the anti- archaeology lobby is motivated by a handful of extremely aggressive free- market militants who are able to bring to bear a good deal of political influence. The lukewarm support from ministers is worrying and shows that they do not have any desire to intervene. There is also a real sense of weariness since the personnel of French archaeology have been engaged in an ongoing conflict for the last five or six years. On a more optimistic note, one of the results of this latest conflict has been the growing awareness amongst French archaeologists of the need for a cooperation and an organisation on a European level. Why not create a lobby for the creation of European legislation for the profession so as to enforce minimum wages and a real career structure? If we don't act, we will forever be reacting, and one day that simply may not be enough.

Links ::

http://www.ainfos.ca/03/jan/ainfos00288.html Anarchist News on Strike