Scrap ARPA and set up a Portable Antiquities Scheme for the USA?

.
Over in the US collectors and dealers somewhat repetitively assert some such nonsense as the Witschonke premise which is the US should do nothing to help nations whose archaeological heritage (I think he means "coins") is threatened by looting until they adopt measures to protect that heritage approved by the USA. In his opinion, that is the adoption of the "British system" of a Treasure Act and a voluntary 'portable antiquities scheme'. Yesterday we saw the same proposal again being put out by an ACCG coin dealer:

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme which prevail in the United Kingdom are the best (and almost the only) existing example of intelligently devised, successful antiquities laws, and in my view something resembling this should be universally adopted. Although the existing political climate does not favor such a sensible and practically motivated resolution of differences, I believe that the adoption of a global Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, with appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States presently restricting private ownership of and export of archaeological antiquities, would do far more to control looting of archaeological sites than any possible combination of repressive and punitive measures.

It is really quite tiresome to have these Americans attempting to dictate to the whole world how they 'should' run their affairs, or they will not get the Uncle-Sam-Seal-of-Approval. Instead of telling everybody else what to do and expecting them to jump when ordered to jump, maybe they could lead the way by example. Set the moral lead. Quite obviously before dictating what others 'should' do, they should first set up such a system in their own country before encouraging others to do the same. The USA has considerable problems with looting of archaeological sites by artefact collectors. The undocumented exploitation of otherwise unthreatened archaeological sites by lithics collectors and pot diggers is a source of damage to the archaeological record in the USA. While it is restricted by law on public and 'Indian' lands which vests control of archaeological material there to the state (just as much as in Egypt, Greece or any other source countries), this does not stop the looting, and the losses to the archaeological record due to site exploitation on private land to serve the expanding collector market are also considerable. I read an account of a US archaeologist who said that in many regions of the USA there is not a single ancient site within walking distance of a means of access which had not been visited and searched by arrowhead hunters. According to him, they are being collected away just as surely as the sites in the Sahara. So US legislation is not protecting the archaeological record there from undocumented damage by collectors and looters.

Perhaps then US antiquity dealers would like to draft a proposal to change US legislation to take into account the proposal that state ownership of archaeological remains is not stopping looting in places like the Four Corners area and does nothing to stop the destruction of sites on land not owned or administered by the state. Let them propose a system like the British one which they insist is the "only intelligent way forward" for OTHER countries. Let them first apply it at home. Why don't they?

How would 'Treasure' be defined in terms of native American and Early Colonial artefacts? In order to make sense and selectively get archaeologically significant items vested in the state it would have to cover archaeologically significant artefacts and assemblages of all the ancient cultures of the country, from Archaic campsites, western pueblos and caves, Woodland and Moundbuilder sites of the east, as well as artefacts from early colonial forts, settlement and trade routes. Once a list of such items has been drawn up and agreed, all that is needed is for the dealers and collectors force the scrapping of scrap the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and related measures and institute their new National Treasures Act which defines state ownership of the designated artefact types, and lays down the process of an inquest and museum acquisition, with the full market value being split between finder and landowner (where the latter is the state, the finder only getting his due share). Just like the British model they want OTHER countries to adopt.

Then to set up a US Portable antiquities Scheme state-wide to cover all the thousands of non-Treasure items found annually by artefact hunters and members of the public, arrowheads, baskets, potsherds, colonial artefacts. How would that be organized to give equivalent coverage to that in the UK? How many Finds Liaison Officers would there have to be to cover the entire USA? What is the optimum distance between them, where would they be based (museums, academic institutions, parks services)? Who would finance it and co-ordinate its activities, and how much would it actually cost?

It seems to me that unless US collectors and dealers are willing to take steps to introduce such a system into the administrative system of their own country and iron out all the problems that would arise from doing this (making the "appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States" in the case of their own), then they really should refrain from making comments about what they think other ('source') nations should be doing to accommodate the US market in dugup antiquities. The Witschonke Premise is a bankrupt premise while US dealers and collectors steadfastly refuse to even consider putting it into action in the case of their own country. It is just the epitome of US hypocrisy.

The US antiquities market has a turnover of millions of dollars annually, their lobbyists have access to considerable resources. If they really believe in the Witschonke Premise, let them commission a feasibility study from the Cultural Property Research Institute, or a real academic institution such as the Capitol Archaeological Institute (CAI) at George Washington University, or maybe the Getty Institute to scrap the ARPA and replace it by a system modelled on the 'exemplary' and 'intelligent' British legislation and then submit it to public consultation. Let us see some honest and transparent debate developing in place of the hypocrisy and glibness that characterises the position of the US no-questions-asked-marketeers.

To catch a Looter in the US

.
Damian Huffer over on SAFE Corner (Forensics, looting, and the law: The view from Ohio) discusses a series of courses organized by Montana-based Martin McAllister in Wayne National Forest near Nelsonville, Ohio. Their aim is to provide archaeologists and law-enforcement officials/investigators from around the region, and from across the US, the tools, on-the-ground training, and 'forensic' perspective they need to investigate cases of prehistoric and historic site looting. The forest contains a variety of archaeological sites spanning 12,000 years of occupation, and including Hopewell-culture burial grounds. The Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Chillicothe has lootings reported monthly. "Sadly, archaeology sites are being looted every day," said McAllister. Antiquity trafficking is among the largest illegal markets in the world, but only 50 to 100 cases of artifact theft and trafficking make it to U.S. courts each year. In the United States there is a huge black market.

During the course,

Mock 'crime-scenes' illustrating several illicit surface collection and excavation scenarios were set up and then utilized, most illustrating evidence for the looting of small, portable prehistoric artifacts such as arrowheads. Field training went hand-in-hand with workshops on the finer points of local and national laws that permit the arrest and trial of looters caught in the act - an outcome which happens far too infrequently, even in the US

Huffer concludes his presentation of the article: if any readers of this blog know about current workshops or classes in their area of the world that are comparable to this, I'd love to hear about them. I wonder whether anyone will point him to the series of courses organized by Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme? No? That's probably because there have never been any organized as part of their "outreach" by that organization.
.

Some Thoughts on the "Texas Amateur Archeological Association"

.
There are a number of artefact hunting groups like this all over the USA, I've discussed some of them earlier here. I was interested in this one because of the material I discuss in the post below this.

Bob McWilliams is the owner of Texas AtlAtl Artifacts. He has been in the artifact business "full time" since February 1994. That is the date he published the first "Texas Cache", the Texas Artifact Magazine issue. Since then he went on to organize the Texas Amateur Archeological Association. He pioneered the idea of lease digs and now operates a successful pay dig operation at several sites around Texas. [...] Bob McWilliams makes his sole living from Texas artifacts. He personally digs thousands of artifacts for the members of his Texas Amateur Archeological association.

He also recommends: Buy Quality Artifacts for Investment

The so-called Texas Amateur Archeological Association (TAAA) is an interesting example of a whole range of issues connected with the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables. In simple terms according to US law (non-cemetery) ancient sites which are on 'public lands' (state-owned) are protected from looting, those on privately-owned property are not (ARPA). If you own land with ancient sites on it, you can basically do what you want with them. One of the things you can do is lease these sites to organizations like the TAAA who then organize "pay digs" for its members (Membership is $40 per year for a single or $50 for a family membership). These are organized more or less like UK metal detecting rallies and have the same range of associated problems.

So the TAAA seek farmers who are willing to let its members onto their land.
.

They clearly have a two-pronged incentive, promising the landowners financial reward as well as presenting itself as a bona fide "archaeological" organization. Much the same way as UK metal detectorists turn up on the doorsteps of farmers with archaeological sites in their fields with folders full of press cuttings where the PAS praises its "partners" the artefact hunters for producing so many nationally important "finds".

The TAAA advertise their "digs" persuasively:

"Come join the other members of the Texas Amateur Archeological Association as they search for artifacts left by ancient people thousands of years ago! You will go hunting with other artifact enthusiasts like yourself. You will learn more about what you are finding and the people that made and left these awesome ancient artifacts!"

Dig with the TAAA! Members of the TAAA never have to worry about not being welcome at a dig site! Dig legal (sic), Dig relaxed and enjoy, Join the TAAA and find your "Artifact of a Lifetime!".

.

Members of the TAAA pay an additional charge (normally $60-$100 per person per day) for access to the site, they camp there and after agreeing to be bound by the "dig rules" (no insurance!) either take part in a "hand dig" or a "backhoe dig". In the latter (which cost more to take part in, $130 - $200 per person per day) a mechanical excavator scoops out the soil from an archaeological site containing stone tools and other artefacts which is then apportioned among the "diggers" who then sift through it (on sieves ['screens']) and pick out the collectable artefacts which they then are allowed to keep. The TAA makes a point of photographing" everything found for its records, but the purpose of these records seems to be more for the purposes of advertising (and maybe liaison with the landowner) than keeping archaeological documentation after all what possible kind of documentation can derive from scooping out bucketloads of midden material or campsite with a mechanical excavator? In their frequently asked questions section in answer to the question: "Is science involved in a TAAA dig?" they state:

We used to take lots of data with each find but our information was not wanted by professional archeologist. We no longer take data other than photos. We document the finds using the members web pages.

Well, it is difficulty to see what "data" a bunch of amateur lithic collectors can create during the trashing of a site by mechanical excavator which would be useful to the archaeologist. I would say that archaeological ethics would require the professional to keep well away from any such enterprise to avoid giving it any kind of legitimacy. The TAAA point out: "The TAAA is not affiliated or associated with any university or state archaeological group". If their website gives a truthful picture of their activities, I should hope not !

.

Photo: Gouging out artefacts (not just "arrowheads") at the "Bacon Rind Ranch" site (Photo TAA newsletter).

In case prospective members have qualms about ethical aspects, they answer the question: Isn't it against the law to pick up artifacts?": No, that is a rumor put out by those who want to find and keep the artifacts for themselves. Ugh, those nasty selfish archaeologists again no doubt. Not only is it not illegal to "pick up" artefacts, shamefully it is not illegal to trash archaeological sites on private land with mechanical excavators so somebody can make lots of cash selling tickets to collectors. Just like a UK metal detecting rally. Like the ACCG, they are involved in campaigning for "collectors' rights", maybe they could unite?

Thank you for your interest in the TAAA and we hope you decide to
join us as we also fight to keep artifact hunting legal in Texas!

How much effort would it actually take to do some actual archaeological research at these sites rather than just cherry-pick the collectable artefacts? To excavate properly with more discipline, to collect other archaeological evidence (such as charred plant matter by techniques such as flotation) to produce an archive of documentation and recovered material? To actually contribute to our knowledge of the sites the TAAA is active on rather than simply trashing them for commercial gain? Why is the TAAA called an "archaeological" association and not artefact collecting association? Why not call a spade a spade?

TAAA website: Welcome!!! To an adventure in Texas artifact hunting!
A copy of the TAAA Electronic newsletter.
Dig Photos.

The 'Artefact Craze' in Texas

.
Bob McWilliams, the owner of Texas AtlAtl Artifacts says he has been in the artefact business "full time" since February 1994. He says: "I got started just as the artifact craze was beginning(1994) ".

This is quite a significant date as, among other things, it is concurrent with the beginnings of the Internet trade in antiquities. Although AtlAtl artefacts does not seem to have been online itself at this date it is clear that the few years around 1995 saw a clear watershed in the development of the antiquities trade across the US and parts of western Europe (at least) when many sellers started to advertise their stock through the Internet as an expansion of existing mail order facilities. This allowed a wider range of people to see what was on offer, and also allowed a decrease of overheads, meaning artefacts could now be traded at lower prices. It also greatly facilitated contact with buyers in a far wider zone than those that could come to a 'bricks and mortar' store. This affordability and increased accessibility of inherently desirable objects such as dugup coins and little knick-knacks sold as examples of "ancient art" and "pieces of history in your hand" inevitably led to an expansion of the market. This in turn quickly far outstripped the existing stocks of material accessible through the circulation of material released through the splitting up of old collections and new material was required. Thus began the "surfacing" of new material which could not be given a (truthful) pedigree of coming from a known old collection, thus the need for the development of a no-questions-asked market.*

In reality, both the 1970 UNESCO Convention as well as the US CCPIA were both written in a period when the antiquities market had a form quite unlike that of the period post 1995, which has taken on a shape scope and extent unimagined then. Perhaps it is time to consider creating new international documents more suited to the current state of the market and the problems its current form represent.

*If you look at the Texas firm's "Relic Certificate" you will not see the actual name of the findspot given, merely in the "area" of which county it was found, even here no questions are asked or it would seem entertained, except for those objects oming from the owner's own "Association dig sites".

Collectors' Activists Mum About Recent Cases

I noted above that a 3,000-year-old Egyptian coffin was seized at a U.S. airport and was returned to Egypt on Wednesday but US collectors' rights activists are notably silent about it. Not a peep on their blogs or discussion lists.

Over in the Four Corners area of the US all sorts of things are going on around a recent case where twenty or so of their fellow collectors stand accused of crimes when all they have done is "preserved" a few Native American artefacts in their homes, looked after them, trying to "understand ancient cultures" by doing so. No different from collecting ancient coins, shabtis or scarabs. Again though the usual culprits are strangely silent abouut developments on their blogs, webpages and discussion group contributions.

In fact the US representatives of this merry band of bloggers is strangely silent generally about US measures to conserve the archaeological heritage of the United States of America. When they mention groups like the AIA it is usually in connection with its standpoint on imported cultural items, from other countries.

What is the matter with these people? Why are they not talking about this? Are they perhaps embarrassed by the failures of the US system to deal with looting and other forms of destruction of the archaeological record? Do they not perhaps care so much about "the past" as they claim, and just shrug their shoulders when it is archaeological remains in the US that are being destroyed? That they are only interested in a "past" that can be bought and sold from a computer desk, and not enjoyed in the field, in the open air? Is the problem for the collectors' activists of the US that the people who left the archaeological record on US soil were not coin-using cultures, unfamiliar with the wheel? This seems to me to be a totally illogical division of the past, and discussions on how best to preserve its material traces.

So come on you antiquity dealers and geekish collector guys, let us see some blogging about how the Barcelona dealer who lost "his" sarcophagus lid has been made a "victim" of the "cultural nationalists". How the Big Brother US Government has violated the "Constitutional rights" of the purchaser to sit in his own home and spend his own hard-earned money on whatever he chooses with his own credit-card. How you cannot even go out with a shovel at night in some regions of the US without some law-enforcement guys following you out to the desert to spy on you. Why actually do the US-based antiquity dealing and buying bloggers concentrate on attacking the antiquities protection measures of unnamed "foreign governments" or specific foreign governments, but almost never make a mention of those of their own governments (the exception being when they are co-operating with the foreigners in investigating illicitly-obtained goods)? I expect the reader can think of a few reasons.

Florida: two more men exercising "collectors' rights" in the USA

US Collectors of ancient dugup coins taken from the archaeological record of foreign countries want the state to upheld so-called "collectors rights" and have even taken state departments to court to achieve this. Their help however is needed nearer home. In Florida, two men last week were accused of excavating artifacts on public land near Newnan's Lake. They were apparently just looking for arrowheads (Karen Voyles '2 men charged with excavating artifacts' Gainsville Sun, February 11, 2010):

State wildlife officers arrested a pair of Marion County men who are accused of searching for arrowheads after they reportedly dug up an area described as "the size of two football fields and looked like it had been carpet bombed."Albert Dawes Ort Jr., 42, and David O. Perry, 29, were each charged with excavation of artifacts on state lands.

The officers said they saw the men carrying backpacks, a ladder and a metal detector. The men were reportedly found with several flint items on them after a day's digging. Perry's backpack reportedly contained "three obvious arrowheads and 14 other pieces of flint that appeared to be artifacts", while a search of Ort's backpack turned up some arrow points. Led to the spot by the men, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officers found an area with 50 shallow holes about "four feet wide, four feet long and two feet deep" all apparently dug in one day. As a consequence, Ort and Perry were booked into the Alachua County jail.

Now I'm sure there are those that think that it is not right that US collectors rights organizations should be fighting for the rights of foreigners to dig up and export artefacts to US collectors and dealers and ignore the plight of the US citizens at home that want to do the same. That is unfair and certainly illogical. Collectors' rights groups in the US should take the men's plight into consideration. They were after all digging on public land, enjoying the heritage of their own country, and no doubt learning a heck of a lot about ancient cultures in doing so. After all, what is better that these artefacts are given a good home in the collections of enterprising young men like these or left lying moldering away in the soil? Even if the archaeologists were to excavate the site, the fnds would only end up in a museum somewhere where very few peeople would ever see them. These are the arguments the US collectors use to justify their disregard of conservation laws of other countries, so why do they not apply to the US archaeological heritage? Come of Mr Sayles, Mr Tompa, Mr Welsh, Mr Hooker and all the usual culprits, why do you not write these guys a warm letter expressing your support and that of antiquity collectors everywhere. The sooner the USA introduces liberal laws like those of England and Wales, the fewer such embarrassing cases of this kind of looting will stop appearing in the newspapers.

Who will join the ACCG "Free Collectors Perry and Ort" campaign ?

Dig your own – no questions asked

My attention has been drawn to a post on another blog which might raise a few eyebrows (David Connolly: Dig your own – Ethics of pay to dig out entire sites BAJR Blogspot). Of course what is described is totally legal, some archaeological sites in the US are by historical accident on federally-owned land and are thus protected by the state in whose ownership they are. Other archaeological sites happen to be on privately-owned land and the owner can do what he likes with them. So we see the effects... Do click on David's link to Digfest and have a good look at the photos...

This is as David Connolly notes an ethical question, not a matter of what is merely within the letter of the law. I'd like to know how the collector's rights advocates (especially the "coiney" ones) have to say about this kind of destruction of the archaeological record so that collectors can have something to collect. it may be legal Mr Sayles/Tompa/Welsh/all the rest of you dugup coin selling and collecting individuals, but is it "right"? Connolly used the Isin photos as an analogy, I'd personally use the Archar ones - the coins bought and sold in the USA come primarily from southeaster European sites like that. And there is is not even legal, and certainly not "right".

There is a page of US arrowhead collectors getting ethical about the destruction caused by "raubgrabung" of archaeological sites (actually I see no difference to what they are fighting and the average Metal detecting rally in the UK) - where is the corresponding one of US coin collectors wonder? I've not seen many yet (I can only recall this somewhat incomplete one at the moment) - maybe somebody would like to point us all to a few more....

Photo: new cash crop for US farmers (from 'dirtbrothers.org' ).

US Artefact Collecting Code of Conduct

Dealers in and collectors of ancient Native American artifacts are encouraged to adhere to the Authentic Artifacts Collectors’ Association Rules of Conduct created at the end of 2007. This like the ACCG one covers mostly aspects connected with dealing as much as collecting of artifacts. It deals with a number of issues such as customer relations , the matter of authenticity, resolution of conflicts. It does also include a number of items of interest concerning the looting of archaeological sites as a source of these collectables and is worth comparing parts of it with what the naysayers in other parts of the US portable antiquity collecting world are asserting about the "impossibility" of keeping track on what items are coming from where and where they are going (the emphasis below is mine):

1.) Members shall engage in the discovery, collection, and/or sale of legally obtained artifacts only. The AACA does not condone the possession, collection, or sale of human remains. [“Those who disregard any laws pertaining to the collection or procurement of artifacts are not welcome”].

3.) All members are expected to maintain and share accurate records of artifact provenience. During artifact transactions, members are also expected to fully disclose any and all associated opinions of authenticity that have been rendered by commercial authenticators. [“The emphasis here is to provide other collectors with complete and accurate information, concerning an artifact's history, as part of any transaction”].

7.) Members must strive to educate new collectors seeking knowledge about artifact collecting. [“We believe that is what this organization is all about - members helping members to learn more about their hobby, history and how to build a clean collection”].

Good for them. I wonder if US dealers in other types of portable antiquities (such as ancient dugup coins) can aspire to the same levels of due diligence as their fellow dealers. But actually of course groups like the ACCG should logically, in the name of "collectors' rights", be fighting the "restrictive" laws which make this kind of material legal to collect in only certain very restrictive circumstances. There is no room for "no-questions-asked" collecting here.

Harvesting the Collectables: Balancing the Interests

The libertarian Las Vegas Review-Journal on Jun. 21, 2009 published an (unsigned) editorial "Do the feds own everything?". In it we read:

"Pot hunting" is legal on private land; it is considered a crime on lands controlled by the government. But the tiny ratio of private to "government-controlled" land in the West would be considered outrageous anywhere else. No one is endorsing wanton vandalism of such sites or artifacts. But it would be useful and realistic if a cooperative, rather than an adversarial, approach allowed quick surveys of such sites, with the most archaeologically promising being set aside for near-future professional digs, with residents told "Harvest the rest if you can".[my emphasis]

"Harvest the rest"? The article is unsigned, but it is a fair assumption that its author has few sympathies for or connections to Native Americans or US archaeologists and conservationists (let us recall that the Archaeological Resources Protection Act does not onlyprotect sites on public land). But apart from the author's outrage that more state-owned land in the region is not sold off to private owners, what lies behind this suggestion? It seems the author is convinced that the justification for digging over archaeological sites in theregion is that the owners of these "bowls, stone pipes, sandals, arrowheads and pendants", the Anasazi "abandoned them, perhaps more than a thousand years ago". So it's finders keepers then. It comes down to property rights and salvage law. The author argues that if these objects are left untouched in the ground, those boring old archaeologists will not come and dig them up right away, but the evidence of past lives will remain unexplored in the ground, until it is "most likely" eroded out,"to be trampled by animals, washed away in the next rains". Obviously the writer does not regard the archaeological evidence of the site being dug through to get a few saleable collectables to sell to a no-questions-asked buyer for a few thouand dollars any kind of threat (presumably "private enterprise"). In fact it seems the writer sees the problem as consisting only of what to do with the "portable antiquities" ("bowls, stone pipes, sandals, arrowheads and pendants") rather than one of conserving ancient sites so they do not suffer unmitigated erosion and looting.

This is the sort of thing that the unthinking propagation of the Portable Aniquities Scheme approach leads to. Peter Tompa is a great fan of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, though it is clear that like many of its US promotors with no real understanding of the issues behind it. He writes:

Perhaps, federal authorities should consult with Roger Bland and the PAS to see if that program might provide some ideas for what can be done in the American Southwest [...]. There should be some way to balance the interests of Native Americans, archaeologists, pot hunters interested in local history and the Federal Government outside the purely punitive approach exemplified by the raids in the Four Corners area.

I would indeed welcome hearing what Roger Bland would recommend as a remedy here, liberalise all the heritage protection laws in the US in order tha local pot diggers can "harvest" the bits of the archaeological record that archaeologists have not scheduled to dig up this year or next year? Mr Tompa represents pot hunters as only "interested in local history" (a PAS mantra) when the Blanding "Action Cerberus" was of course aimed entirely at people that were selling their "dugups", and for no small sums of money.

I think the ACCG and the rest of us really should hear from their numismatic "friend" what the PAS position would be here. Would the PAS be for punishing illegal digging of Native American sites and graveyards for collectables, or would it urge a way to "balance the interests" of collectors and the antiquities trade in the American Southwest as Mr Tompa suggests? Since the ACCG seem to feel free to speak for the PAS to an international audience in matters like this, I think we have a right to know what position the PAS itself holds on such matters.

It is nice to look at the comments to that editorial to observe just what kind of company Mr Tompa is with thoughts like he has.

Photo: Native American (Caddo) cemetery recently "harvested" by artefact hunters. Is this what the ACCG have in mind?

Documenting the origin of archaeological collectables in the US

We have seen here several times how collectors of portable antiquities in the United States advocate other countries abandoning their current "restrictive" archaeological heritage protection legislation. They demand that they adopt the current laissez faire approach of England and Wales to the collecting of so-called "portable antiquities" with a voluntary reporting of finds and an unregulated market. These advocates fail to recognise that the United States has itself in fact just such a "restrictive" system of archaeological resources protection legislation in the case of sites and artefacts from "federal and indian lands", which is in fact the greater part of the land area of the country. Nevertheless such legislation offers next to little protection to sites on private land. This means that US artefact hunters can legally dig up and sell almost what they want from private land, but cannot touch sites on public land without a permit. From the collectors' point of view, the US system embodies the "best of both worlds".

It does not however work that way, because in the milieu of portable antiquity collectors the world over are greedy self-centred individuals who care little about where the items they covet come from. The "best" Native American sites (richest, easier to find and dig) in the US are often on public land.

We saw an example of this in southern Utah, where 24 people were recently arrested for illegal activities concerning Native American antiquities. This case has received wide publicity pour encourager les autres and there has been some reaction on the associated forums. This material is useful to give those of us not from rural Utah an insight into the collecting mentality and what has been going on in portable antiquity collecting circles. In particular, the affadavit to the search warrant issued in the case of schoolteacher Dave Lacy published online by two US news media organizations gives us the information based on the investigating officer’s “knowledge, experience and information provided by other law enforcement officers” concerning artefact hunting and the antiquities trade in the area.

Given the discussion that has been going on with US collectors of ancient coins removed from foreign archaeological sites on documenting provenance of the ancient items being offered for sale, my attention was caught by the issue of documentation of provenance in this milieu. It is, however, a complex matter. Apparently, in this milieu in the US engaged in the collecting of this sort of portable antiquity:

“objects typically are sold with a letter or provenance which acts as a sort of title document. Letters of provenance usually list the individual who found the item, usually the location where it as found, and include assurances that the item was not illegally collected from public or Indian lands.” (Affadavit point
13).

This is interesting, it suggests that in one part of the portable antiquity collecting community in the US due to the structure of the legislation the maintenance of documentation for the legal origin of objects in the collection is standard practice for law abiding collectors and dealers, which makes even more incomprehensible the refusal of collectors of other types of portable antiquity prone to contamination with illicitly obtained material (like ancient coins) to maintain such documentation.

The problem is not so straightforward however, since - depite the abundant opportunities to collect archaeological material without any conflict with the law - in the collecting of archaeological material from the US there are unscrupulous law-breakers too. The same text notes that

“Individuals who deal in stolen archaeological objects are usually very careful to disguise the site of origin. This is usually done by identifying the site of origin as leased and/or private property” (Affadavit points 13 and 17).

The affadavit goes on to describe how in some cases a blank letter of provenance form may be supplied by the buyer for the seller to complete with false provenance details. This is what allegedly happened in a transaction which reportedly occurred in December 2007 in Blanding, Utah, when the accused man Dave Lacy offered the individual (“the Source”) working undercover for the FBI several items from his collection. The deal was made (over six thousand dollars were paid for four groups of artifacts) and

“Lacy asked the source if he had something for him to sign. The Source provided Lacy with a Letter of Provenience. The source stated that lacy needed to put private property as the location where the artifacts were found. Lacy then listed a private property location, Eugene Guyman’s land Mustang Mesa and signed the false letter of provenience”.

The problem is that when he indicated the true origin of the items, a blanket, a digging stick and knife, they had come from other sites, including public land.

The document alleges that in a second sale of artefact by the same person took place in the middle of January involved organic finds from several different sites (loincloth, menstrual pad, basket, sandals) and a pot. Two of the sandals came from a burial in Cottonwood Wash (an area mentioned in a previous prosecution case), while the pot was in fact from a piece of private property and was thus a licitly obtained find. The affadavit alleges:

Lacy filled out a letter of provenance stating that all the above items were found on “Preston Nielsons property (Westwater) ”. Lacy then signed this fraudulent Letter of Provenience.

It should be noted that one of the items in this group (the pot) could apparently have been sold under its real provenence, but it was given a false one at the time of the sale by the digger (Affadavit points 24-28). This means that as it passes throught successive private collections, it will perpetuate the deceit that it comes from to an archaeological site which in fact does not exist.

If these sorts of practice are at all prevalent in US pot-digging circles, it means that even here any letters of provenience indicating which cannot be independently verified are suspect. What can be done to prevent liars and cheats misrepresenting archaeological material in the United States? Perhaps they need to introduce some form of Portable Antiquities Scheme there before insisting that other countries adopt something like it.

Vignette: Some of the sites mentioned in the case (source Salt Lake Tribune)

Pot Diggers of the US Might Unite Now to Defend their 'Rights'?

Public opinion in the US seems to be against the trashing of archaeological sites in their own country as a source of collectables for the entertainment and profit of a minority of portable antiquity collectors. Pot-diggers presumably want to preserve their freedom to collect what they want how they want without bothersome officials poking their noses into their business asking awkward questions about where the items actually came from. These collectors could perhaps take the same road as the US no-questions-asked ancient coin dealing lobby. Perhaps as a result of this scrutiny of their hobby caused by the Utah bust, they will decide to get together and form an "Ancient Ceramics Collectors Guild".... "a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving our freedom to collect, committed to fighting restrictive heritage protection legislation, promoting the free and independent collecting of ancient dugup ceramic and other ancient artifacts from our native country's past. The Guild will foster an environment in which the general public can confidently acquire and hold any artifact of historical interest regardless of date or place of origin. It will strive to achieve its goals througheducation, political action, and consumer protection...." Yeah, right. I guess like the illegal coin import stunt of the coin dealers' ACCG they could stage an illegal pot-dig in Baltimore and then in a court case challenge the US government's "retentionist" and "nationalist" policies of declaring certain ancient artefacts from US soil state property....

Seriously, I would be interested to learn from readers of any analogous groups in Native American (or other) artefact collecting circles in the USA which have a similar modus operandi as the ancient coin milieu's ACCG or the old DIG campaign in Britain, I have not come across any.

Druggies Stealing State's History

.
Les Smith reports ("Druggies Stealing Arkansas Artifacts") that looting of archaeological sites in Northeast Arkansas USA is seriously damaging our ability to understand the past of the region. The area has become a lucrative hunting ground for those interested in archaeological artefacts not for their value for scholarship when interpreted in context, but for black market bucks gained from looting sites in search of valuable antiquities.

Dr. Juliet Morrow, Jonesboro-based archeologist for the Arkansas Archeological Survey, says, "There are some people who collect artifacts and there's others who loot them so that they can then sell them to get money to purchase drugs. Especially, methamphetamine that's popular in this part of the state." Morrow explains that on the no-questions-asked US collectors’ market, the artefacts these people hunt, "can bring very high dollar figures upwards of 50 thousand dollars for a single pottery vessel, if it's the right time period, the right style. There are spear points that can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's what the buyers are willing to pay. This is a market that's been escalating over the last couple of decades."

The report uses as an example of the effects of this looting what AAS archaeologists found at one farm located about an hour east of Jonesboro, where earlier this month they learnt of the looting of an old Native American cemetery. The artefact hunters dug into the grave to extract artefacts for sale to portable antiquity collectors and in the process, left scattered around their holes a number of the artefacts they had dug out of the archaeological record but were not deemed ‘saleable’, as well as human skeletal remains. This is just one case of many reported year after year all over the United States.

Arkansas already has laws against this kind of thing, including increased criminal penalties against desecrating burial grounds for profit. Through a seminar scheduled for next week at A-S-U, Dr. Morrow hopes to secure help from surrounding local law enforcement agencies to more aggressively enforce the law. She says that, "If we fight the looting problem, we'll also be putting a damper on the drug trafficking that's going on because it's […] intricately connected."

Watch a video of the original news report here.

This report illustrates a number of things.

1) Firstly there is no difference between portable antiquity collectors in the USA buying an object (say a pot “of the right right time period and style” to fill a gap in their personal collection) and portable antiquity collectors in the USA buying objects looted from ancient sites abroad (say an ancient Greek coin “of the right right time period and style” to fill a gap in their personal collection). It’s exactly the same phenomenon, and to treat them as separate cases is simply self-delusion.

2) The United States has laws protecting the archaeological heritage (which they call a “Resource” – which it is, a fragile and finite one). Artefact diggers and no-questions-asked collectors are ignoring it in the same way as the foreign artefact diggers ignore theirs because collectors outside their country’s borders will pay (no-questions-asked) dollars for what they dig up.

3) Not all artefact diggers are doing it to get money for “starving families” as collectors claim – it seems to be an emerging pattern that the antiquities market is increasingly seen a source of easy cash financing a number of iunsavoury and illegal activities. The no-questions-asked collector is directly responsible for the cash flow which sustains these activities.

4) The numbers of artefacts on the market at the ‘buyer’ end are disproportionate to the amount of destruction done in “mining” them. Dozens or hundreds of archaeological features and layers will be destroyed in the search for the one pot that sells for 50000 bucks. Thousands of other pieces of pottery will be dug out of their archaeological context (destroying the latter) only to be discarded on the site – they never make it to the market for collectors to “preserve” in their personal collections.

5) It is notable that the US advocates of collectors rights (such as ACCG Executive Director Wayne Sayles who lives just across the state line 160 km from Jonesboro) do not apply their stock arguments about the alleged social benefits of the no-questions-asked market in portable antiquities to the artefact hunting and collecting occurring on their own doorstep. Isn’t that a little inconsistent of them? The arguments about portable antiquity collecting as a source of personal “knowledge” about culture, tolerance between nations, preserving the artefacts from having to lie in the ground (giving them a better home), the “free enterprise” benefits of disregarding “restrictive laws” imposed by an authoritarian government for the benefit of ivory tower elitist archaeologists (to a man, compliant “nationalists” to boot) and all the rest simply do not apply here. So why on earth would anyone want us to believe they apply to the collection of portable antiquities from anywhere else?

As I have said earlier, before urging other countries to liberalise their archaeological resource protection legislation to facilitate the stigma-free collection in the USA of portable antiquities taken from sites in their territory, let these US collectors campaign loudly and publicly for the repeal of the comparable laws that protect the archaeological heritage of their country. After all, they can hardly expect other nations to follow where the USA and its law-abiding citizen refuses to be an example, can they?

Here is an interesting web page about Arkansas pot hunting and artefact collecting (Sam Dellinger and much more) which has a venerable tradition (sound familiar?)

The web page of the Arkansas state archaeologist (They produce teaching resources for schools, including a 'discovery box' - sounds like a handling collection to me. I bet, unlike the Ancient Coins For Education programme, the aim is not to produce young collectors by giving them potentially stolen archaeological items from foreign lands to take home and keep.)
.

Collectors and looters in South Dakota

Much has been written about the effect of the capacious and expanding no-questions-asked antiquities market in the US on the degree of looting of the world’s archaeological sites. US Collectors are especially vocal in their use of all sorts of arguments to defend their “right to collect” pieces of a past coming from other people’s archaeological heritage. It is therefore interesting to see how public opinion and law enforcement authorities deal with the threat portable antiquity hunting and collecting collecting causes to the archaeological heritage of the USA.

Josh Verges writes of the federal indictments earlier this month of three men accused of trafficking in Native American artifacts in South Dakota which “reveal a lucrative trade centered on the illegal harvesting of a culture's buried history” in the heart of the USA. The investigation continues with the possibility of more indictments, and those already filed involve "a significant number of artifacts."

Brian Ekrem, 28, of Selby and Richard Geffre, 49, of Pierre allegedly sold three copper arm bands in violation of the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act and were involved in the collection of many other artifacts, including beads, arrowheads and bone tools. Scott Matteson, 60, of Fort Pierre is accused of buying red stone discs, arrowheads and a sandstone scraping tool, all of which had been removed from public and Indian lands.

In the context of the discussion of the current no-questions-asked portable antiquities market it is notable that Matteson (who like the other two pleads not guilty) “said last week that he bought the items from an artifacts dealer and he did not know their origins”.

In the US, Federal laws prohibit the removal of human remains, funerary items and other sacred items from Indian land and public land. It also prohibits anyone from knowingly buying those items. The law does not however stop landowners from digging or collecting those items on their own property; leading to a very patchy system of protecting the archaeological resource. Obviously if, mindful of this, collectors demanded and retained evidence of legitimate provenance of the artefacts in their personal “artefact museums” then Matteson would not have had any problems with the authorities. Nor would the authorities now have problems in sorting out the origin of the items in his “38-foot trailer filled with Native American arrowheads, pots and other relics, which he has collected during the past 50 years” which was recently confiscated by federal agents. (I guess its convenient it was on wheels and not in a garden shed as many UK “metal detectorists” use to “curate” their collections).

Mr Matteson said he “began collecting arrowheads as a child when he would get farmers' permission to search their cornfields and keep an eye out while fishing with his father. When the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 restricted the collection of artifacts from riverbeds - navigable waterways are public land - he turned to auctions and gun shows to build his collection” (gun shows?). Matteson said: "I scoured the country for those arrowheads. I put my life into this. I built this museum to go to schools to teach and show kids," Are there no proper museums in South Dakota that its inhabitants have to rely on a collector’s show-and-tell session from a rock-shop owner to learn about their region’s past? Presumably the region has had some rescue archaeology where is the material from that archived? Perhaps it is a lack of cultural outreach about the rich prehistory of the territory of North America which leads its citizens to hanker for bits and pieces looted from archaeological sitres across the seas?

Looting of native American sites by artefact hunters is a large problem in the area. University of South Dakota anthropologist Brian Molyneaux pointed out that "As tribes hold every place and every remnant of the past as part of a living legacy - central to their religions and histories - each act of looting is yet another in a very long line of aggressive attacks against them, when they only want to live at peace in their own land."

"Hold every place and every remnant of the past as part of a living legacy”

That seems something that US portable antiquity collectors should try to get their heads around in their rants about the “archaeologists” who are trying to conserve the archaeological resource in situ. The focus of discussion these days is not so much national identity (pace Cuno) but about power of place.

Photo: Sioux territory in the Dakotas.