Illinois Archaeological Site Looted

.

Artefact hunters have damaged and looted an archaeological site of the Woodland and Mississippian cultures on farmland in southwestern Illinois. Large holes were dug with shovels into the excavated area in a hasty search for artefacts after the students had left the site after work on Friday. The thieves also broke into a locked equipment storage box and stole a $200 piece of surveying equipment. The damage was discovered on Monday morning, but heavy rain on Friday night erased any tracks the vandals may have left. The vandals caused so much damage that the team will have to begin the dig again.

Looter's hole in the middle of an excavation square

It is reported that the finds present on the site were of low monetary value, "there is nothing of commercial value here. You couldn't sell it," Gregory Vogel, an assistant professor with the archaeological field school at Southern Illinois University's Edwardsville campus, told the Belleville News-Democrat.

George Pawlaczyk, 'So much work, and it was gone': Vandals hit SIUE archaeology dig', Belleville News-Democrat, Jun. 14, 2011
Read more:

Chad Garrison, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: Vandals Destroy Archaeological Dig at Southern Illinois - Edwardsville', Riverfront Times, Jun. 15 2011

Of course this digging is only visible (and being written about) because it took place on a site currently being investigated. The holes dug by artefact hunters, looking for exactly the same types of artefacts on exactly the same type of rural site, don't make it to the press, but are no less deep and wide, no less damaging to the archaeological record. And this is going on all the time, in the daytime, in evenings at weekends, but nobody bats an eyelid. It is the collector's "right" to collect the pro-collecting advocates say. They claim the right to create this kind of devastation of archaeological sites wherever and whenever they take a fancy, sometimes keeping within the law (only on private land with permission), sometimes breaking the law. It makes no difference to them, neither does it make much difference to the people who buy the artefacts coming from such diggings.

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.

Four Corners Fiasco: Joseph M. Smith and his Artefact Collection

.
From Kimberly Alderman's Cultural Property & Archaeology Law blog:

Federal prosecutors have entered into deals in three more of the Four Corners antiquities trafficking cases. For Meredith Smith, they’ll drop the charges if she doesn’t get charged with any other crimes in the next six months. Tad Kreth had his charges reduced from 17 counts to 1, and the prosecutors will recommend probation. And Joseph Smith has had his charges reduced from 38 counts to 1, and he’ll have to forfeit the Native American artifacts he owns.

Kimberly calls this "The Four Corners Sideshow" and accuses the authorities of "overcharging" the defendants to justify the scale of the operation. She subtitles her blog "A legal resource for archaeology and cultural property enthusiasts", but I am not quite sure what sort of message she intends sending archaeology "enthusiasts" by what she writes. The United States is arguably at the moment one of the largest markets in the world for looted archaeological artefacts. As such, one would expect the cultured people of that nation would be doing something about it, reducing the damaging effects of the actions of the cowboys and dodgy dealers in their midst rather than encouraging them. But instead we can see that they cannot even deal with the destroyers of the archaeological heritage in their own country and many of those talking about the issues over there are lawyers who seem from what they write almost to side with the eroders of history. But then there is big money in collecting, isn't there?

As for the scale of the operation, what is being investigated in cases like this is usually an exceptionally clandestine process. “ARPA investigations can be as complex as murder cases,” Todd Swain said in a 2007 analysis ('Cultural Resource damage on the Public Lands, what the statistics Show' (Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 7). They do need the expenditure of considerable resources, which is what makes it frustrating that cases like this, instead of awakening concern about the ongoing looting of America's archaeological heritage, there is more criticism of the authorities for trying to deal with the problem despite the obvious hindrance the crappy US laws and lack of a centrally coordinated heritage protection system create.

Whether or not anyone was "overcharged" is debatable. I note that Joseph M. Smith , 31, from Blanding mentioned above has (had) an "artefact collection" which presumably federal authorities had reason to believe contains items illicitly obtained (I assume he'll not be losing anything which is properly 'papered' with positive proof of licit provenance). He was initially charged (together with some other people) with a number of counts of selling items which it was alleged were obtained illegally. But that is not his whole collection, and one may presume the transactions mentioned in the charge sheet are only those for which federal authorities (claim to) have documented proof. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article 'A breakdown of the artifact theft charges', they are: "17 felony counts of violating ARPA, eight felony counts of theft of government property, two felony counts of theft of Indian tribal property, one misdemeanor count of theft of Indian tribal property". Smith however admits going onto land and taking artefacts from where he should not have.

Hamilton said his client, Joseph M. Smith, intends to admit in court that he took artifacts from public lands. “But what he is guilty of is a misdemeanor.” [...] “He wasn’t like some of the others that had literally truckloads of artifacts,” Hamilton said. “He was more of a construction worker who walks through the desert.”

The additional charges were dropped because of uncertainty about the financial value of the artefacts concerned.

Then there was Carl Lavern Crites "two felony counts of violating ARPA, two felony counts of theft of government property, one felony count depredation of government property". Crites is a collector and dealer of American Indian items. Overcharged? He had just three objects in his store and collection? Or is every single other item in his store and collection papered showing undeniable licit origin? Another cultural property lawyer with an ambiguous position on this case Derek Fincham points out, there is "no obligation" in US law for them to have so (and he is right of course - US law is woefully deficient in several regards where cultural property issues are concerned). Crites however admitted to taking part in illegal excavation of an ancient (Native American) grave looking for collectable artefacts in September 2008. Was this really the first and only time he'd ever done anything like this, or was it the only occasion where Federal authorities could document it?

Then we have the Redds, James, Jeanne and Jerrica. A sad case as James - who had reportedly been in trouble with the law before over related matters, but not only - decided to commit suicide rather than face the charges. But rather oddly it was his wife that was the cause of the raid on their home in June. She surrendered a collection of over 800 artefacts in 112 boxes (it needed two trucks to take them away). Again was this collection properly papered with collecting histories showing licit origins? Mention is made in the receipt of lots and lots of artefacts, but not a single mention of any files of documentation or collection catalogue cards. She was initially charged on seven or eight counts, her husband only one of them (together with her) and the daughter with three which apparently emerged during examination of whatever evidence there was about how the artefacts in their home were obtained.

But this was apparently not the first time that the artefact collecting activities of the Redd family had brought them into conflict with the authorities ('Couple agree to pay fine for digging up Anasazi site').

In 1996, a San Juan County sheriff's deputy found the Redds and several children digging near prehistoric ruins in Cottonwood Wash near Bluff. Charges were first filed the following year. The charges included desecration of a corpse, a felony. The charge against James Redd, 52, was dismissed. Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik said that was because Jeanne Redd "was the prime mover and the one most interested in these sorts of relics." The state's suit alleged the Redds destroyed a prehistoric grave site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Jeanne Redd's plea agreement argued that if an ancient grave had been disturbed, it was on private land.

Reportedly "They asserted they had the right to dig at an Anasazi ruin on private land, but a survey later showed the site was on state land" (Joe Bauman, 'Anasazi case is finally put to rest', Deserte news Jan. 26, 2003). They had been threatened by a $250,000 lawsuit brought by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration which James and Jeanne Redd apparently settled by making a payment of $10,000 in 2003. Despite this, the Redd family apparently continued to collect artefacts, and the raid on June 10th 2009 and the consequent charges were the results of this. In the case of the acquisition of at least seven of those artefacts federal authorities believed they could document illicit origins, and in the event Jeanne Redd pleaded guilty to all seven. What 'overcharging' was applied here?

Neither do I think it likely that the two dozen people investigated and charged as a result of Operation Cerberus are the only people in the Four Corners area involved in the illegal acquisition of artefacts from the looting of archaeological sites in the region. Judge Waddoups seems to express the idea that since everybody has been doing it, it would be invidious to give those actually caught doing it sentences as severe as the law lays down. But these people all know that in doing what they do they are breaking the law (I expect they themselves would add "technically"). This looting of protected sites is clearly a huge problem and - despite the existence of laws ostensibly to protect the US archaeological resource - the US judicial system now seems to be giving a signal that the US administration actually intends to do nothing much about it. They are just giving offenders a slap on the wrist, and an admonition 'not to do it again'. That's what, for example, the Redds got in 2003, but six years later and apparently eight hundred dugup artefacts later, that is what they seem to have been found to have been doing.

Vignette: Anasazi bowl, Chaco Canyon - this one not looted.

More Guilty Pleas in Four Corners Looting Case

.
Three Utah residents have pleaded guilty in a federal court on Friday to trafficking stolen artifacts from federal and tribal lands in southern Utah. Reece Laws, Tad Kreth and Joseph Smith, Blanding residents, pleaded guilty, "taking American Indian artifacts from public lands". The mere formality of sentencing is set for July 18.

"A federal prosecutor says an indictment for a fourth defendant, Meredith Smith, will be dismissed if she doesn't commit any crimes for next six months".

Chi-Chi Zhang, 'Several Utahns plead guilty to American Indian artifact looting' Associated Press, April 29, 2011

Back in July last year (San Juan Record - 'Antiquities cases work way through court system '): "To date, there have been no trials related to the charges, but several are planned. An October trial date has been set for Blanding residents Joseph M. Smith, Meredith Smith, Tad Kreth, Reece Laws and Brandon Laws before Judge Stewart".

These cases had a bit of a 'twist' in them in that for some months there was some wrangling about the value of the objects involved and whether or not Arizona antiquity dealer Dace Hyatt could testify for the defence in the case (the prosecution argued he could not be a court expert as he had no archaeological training, and had earlier been quoted in newspapers calling the Operation Cerberus 'entrapment'), the court decided he could testify (Artifacts Dealer is an 'Expert' Says Federal Judge). The defence of the accused argued that establishment of the monetary value of the items concerned was important because there is a minimum value in federal law for felony charges. Loss of archaeological value of course cannot be measured.

Blanding Artefacts Sentence Cut

.
Readers might remember the curious case of a US District Court judge (Clark Waddoups) who says looting of the archaeological resource in the United States of America is "justified", even if in contravention of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. He was the one who sentenced the first two defendants in the Four Corners looting case, setting a precedent of lenience which makes a mockery of the whole procedure of investigation and apprehension of people engaged in looting archaeological sites for collectable items for personal entertainment and profit. The two had admitted to multiple felonies of excavating, possessing and selling prehistoric pottery and personal ornaments in contravention to US law. As part of the plea, Jeanne Redd had agreed to give up all of the artefacts in her collection, surrendering 112 boxes of artefacts, including reportedly human remains. As part of a plea bargain, she had pleaded guilty to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property and three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Each carried potential fines of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. Daughter Jericca Redd, admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase and a pottery vessel in 2008, on the Navajo reservation. They both got probation and a fine. According to the Deseret Times:

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups terminated the remaining 18 months and six months, respectively, of probation for [...] Jeanne Redd, and daughter Jerica Redd. Both had paid fines in full and had complied with all conditions of their probation, according to court records.

It is a good job then that Judge Waddoups did not require that the two restore the integrity of the archaeological record at every single point from which they dug thousands of artefacts a selection of which was in those 112 boxes. That of course is considerably more difficult than persuading jovial Judge Waddoups to let them off. In fact it is impossible. Through their deliberate, selfish and illegal activities these women have destroyed that evidence for ever. And the US legal system apparently does not really give a hoot, after all, its not really "US cultural heritage" (sic) is it, its just "injun pots" involved isn't it? No wonder collectors and dealers over there cannot be persuaded to respect other countries' heritage protection laws when it seems civil society over there apparently has so little respect for their own.
.

Rory Tyler: "Rewrite the Artifact Law"

.
Rory Tyler, Moab radio personality and "cowboy poet" has a letter in the Salt Lake tribune (Jan 08 2011) called "Rewrite the Artifact Law" - doing his bit for US collectors' rights that the foreign-dug ancient-coin-focussed ACCG will not do. This is what he says:

[...] clearly there is no way to currently prevent looting of ancient artifacts. Where a black market exists, someone will supply its demands. [...] We need a new paradigm because the current one for protection and preservation is failing. [...] As long as the artifact black market exists, it’s going to be cops and robbers in the canyons.

First of all let us note that it is for him unquestionable that the looting odf archaeological sites in his country is taking place because people are collecting the things dug up. We note that the US coineys, wholly illogically, deny this connection strenuously. Mr Tyler however sees no need to defend this notion, and - frankly - nor do I.

In his letter, Tyler calls for a legalising of the market in dugup antiquities. Sadly he misses the main point, he has been drawn into artefact fetishisation by the collectors' propaganda. Perhaps here is a point US archaeologists and preservationists need to get over more forcibly. It is of course not "who owns artefacts" that is the problem. The law is not the "Artifact law" (sic) but the 1906 Antiquities Act (see 16 U.S.C. § 431 to § 433) and the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96-95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470mm) - designed not to channel "artefacts" into one set of hands or another but to protect the archaeological record from being dug over clandestinely for entertainment or profit in search of collectables.

Under the impression that this is about ownership of clandestinely-excavated artefacts, Tyler proposes a solution for consideration:

Today, the richest troves of Southwestern artifacts exist in collections, public and legal, and private and often illegal. Rewrite the Antiquities Act this way: Declare amnesty for possession of all existing artifacts. Record and register them and allow owners to buy, sell, trade or donate them in a regulated market. This would accomplish several things.

First, the new artifacts that would become available to collectors would overwhelm the black market, reducing or ending the incentive for looting.

Second, an artifact’s history, that information valuable to scientists, would be recovered before it’s completely lost — for example, a family story about where Uncle Earl found it.

Third, create a digital catalogue, a virtual museum of items hitherto unavailable to researchers.

This is more or less what Dave Welsh is suggesting for other types of artefacts. Maybe the ACCG should reconsider its policy of not collaborating with local collectors of locally dug artefacts so US collectors are singing from the same songsheet.

As for Mr Tyler's suggestions, the "new artefacts" would only become available for collectors to swamp the black market if the collectors owning the now-legitimised artefacts decide to sell them, why should they? The other two notions sound like what the PAS is doing in the UK with the artefacts other collectors have dug up all over the place.

What is unclear is how Mr Tyler's suggestion of legalising the market in dugup archaeological artefacts from protected sites, so it is no longer "black", will in any way effect preservation of the archaeological sites from which they are being dug. What would be to stop looters going out to dig up a whole lot more during this period of amnesty? In any case the felony is not so much the "possession of artefacts", but the unauthorised digging into protected sites. I feel that were Mr Tylor's suggestion be adopted, there would be a lot of artefacts which their owners would be claiming were found "over there by my Late Uncle Earl" - rather than admitting that it was they who were wielding the shovel.