Message #271:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: Artifact Trade Case Study
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 20:27:26 -0700


[ just found 1995? document -- SASIG Ed. ]

http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/TED/artifact.HTM

Case Study 
TED Case Studies
Artifact Trade
CASE NUMBER:          216 
CASE MNEMONIC:      ARTIFACT 
CASE NAME:          Artifact Trade in US 
* <#r1>IDENTIFICATION 
* <#r2>LEGAL CLUSTERS 
* <#r3>GEOGRAPHIC CLUSTERS 
* <#r4>TRADE CLUSTERS 
* <#r5>ENVIRONMENT CLUSTERS 
* <#r6>OTHER FACTORS 




  I.  name=r1>Identification


1. The Issue

This case study concerns the illegal trade of Native American artifacts.
 Artifacts here include human remains, funerary and sacred objects, and
everyday objects.  For decades, archaeological sites in the United
States have been vandalized and looted.  In the process, much of the
site is destroyed, rendering it useless to archaeologists and historians
for the reconstruction of ancient cultures.  Furthermore, the Native
American peoples themselves are disrupted and disturbed by the removal
of sacred objects from their culture and ceremonies.  One recent case is
that of Little Bighorn, which is the first conviction under NAGPRA. 
These thefts occur on both private and federal lands, encompassing a
wide range of jurisdictions.  The trade is largely spurred by increasing
pressure from the international art market. 

2. Description

The rising discovery of archaeological sites in the American southwest
during the 1870s and 1880s led to increased interest in southwestern
artifacts.  This in turn resulted in the looting  of these sites, as
well as "recreational" digging by both residents and tourists.  For many
inhabitants of the region, the sale of these artifacts represented
substantial extra income.  The realization by Federal Agencies of the
destruction led to the creation of the Federal Antiquities Act in 1906. 
This act prevented the destruction of monuments and antiquities on
public land, yet allowed the free import and export of such artifacts. 

Little documentation of the problem exists for the period 1906 through
the 1960s.  As interest in the American Indians rose in the 1970s, the
true dimension of the problem came to light. The increase in public
interest had jumped demand for artifacts in both the domestic and
international markets.  Sites fell under increasingly heavy destruction
in the search to satisfy demand.  

Most of the vandalism occurred in remote areas (virtually all of the
sites) and under cover of darkness.  Heavy equipment, which destroys the
land in a short period of time, was a common instrument because of its
quickness in uncovering the site.  Deep plowing, for example, cuts
through the earth in huge chunks in order to bring artifacts to the
surface.  This technique essentially destroys the site for all further
possible usage. Other methods included probes, camouflage, and
aircraft.(1) 

In an attempt to stem the loss of cultural artifacts and vandalism, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) was instituted in 1979 to
create authorities capable of enforcement. This act was amended in 1988.
 It is still proving both inefficient and ineffective, however, in
controlling the problem. 

According to a 1988 Congressional report on the vandalism and looting in
the four-corners region of the country (namely, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, and Colorado), up to 90% of the known sites in this area are
believed to have been vandalized to some extent.  There is a 42%
increase in reported events from 1985 data, although most vandalism
remains unreported since most sites have not been surveyed in order to
assess the extent of the problem.(2) 

At the time of the report, around 19,000 sites were known to exist. 
This area contains sites from many different tribes, including those of
the Navajo, Anasazi, Ute, Apache, and Hopi.  The Bureau of Land
Management is responsible for 55.5 million acres in the region, with
only 4.5% of the area surveyed to know of its contents.  It is estimated
that 90% of the area is American Indian, and that 50-90% has been
looted.  The National Park Service controls 5.29 million acres; 10% had
been surveyed.  The Bureau of Land Management has 30.5 million acres,
with 4.3% surveyed, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service controls
2.45 million acres, having surveyed only 1%.  The U.S. Forest Service
has 42.7 million acres and had surveyed about 7%.  The Forest Service
estimates that Utah faces a greater problem with looting than does
either Arizona or New Mexico, by as much as a factor of five.  In
addition, although this agency has done the most of the federal agencies
in controlling looting, its efforts are exceedingly uneven, concentrated
primarily in Arizona.(3) 

Because of the vast land areas the local agency offices are responsible
for covering and the remote locations of many of the archaeological
sites, agency staff rarely revisit most archaeological sites after they
are initially recorded. Therefore the extent to which recorded sites
have been recently looted is unknown.(4) 

The greatest problem inherent to all of these agencies is the lack of
staff and resources to adequately implement the measures delineated by
ARPA.  ARPA was designed "to protect archaeological resources on public
and Indian lands."(5)  It required permits to excavate an area.  It also
prohibited the trade of stolen artifacts, except surface arrowheads
which were covered under the 1906 Antiquities Act and the regulations
concerning the theft of government property. 

ARPA has also proved difficult in the courtroom.  Most Americans are
uneducated about the effects of artifact looting and the precise
definitions contained in the ARPA.  As a result, vandals are often
prosecuted not with ARPA but rather with either the 1906 Act or
government property theft, which tend to be easier to explain and to
understand.  The combination of these two problems has led the Congress
to conclude that looting of archaeological sites in the Navajo
Reservation alone suffered a 1,000% increase from 1980 to 1987.(6) 

The international art market drives the destruction of sites for their
hidden resources.  The business is both large and dangerous.  It
dominates the black market, which often proves disadvantageous to
archaeologists whose lives are jeopardized by their work.  Although
pottery is one of the prized artifacts, almost anything will bring a
price, including human remains.  

Individual objects on the market are often difficult to trace to the
country of origin, never mind to the original site. Oftentimes, whole
sites are destroyed in the hunt for the best "marketable" objects.  In
addition, the largest objects are often impaired by transport, cut into
smaller pieces for the journey. This is simply further destruction to
history. 

Art has become a favored means of investment since the 1950s.  In
addition, objects tend to acquire higher prices the further they travel
from "home".  One example given was a Mimbres pot, renowned for its
specific style.  Native to southern New Mexico, such a pot there could
fetch $200-$1,000, but in Albuquerque could garner up to $45,000.  This
same pot might receive $95,000 in New York, while prices of $400,000
have been recorded in Europe.7  Most stolen pieces that find their way
overseas eventually reside in Europe and Japan, although Korea, Taiwan
and Saudi Arabia have also become recent storehouses.  Since the U.S.
Customs Agency is currently [as of 1993] not involved in regulation, it
is estimated that the loss is in the multimillions of dollars.8 

Part of the problem stems from the right of ownership.  In most of the
rest of the world, antiquities are nationalized. Thus, once an artifact
is discovered, it is owned by the national government.  In the U.S. this
is not the case.  The owner of the property, by U.S. law, also owns
whatever is contained on, or in, that land.  In addition, as has already
been demonstrated, the federally-owned lands are vast and their contents
remain largely unknown.  Furthermore, prosecution of looters and vandals
is tenuous at best.  An attempt to reconcile the situation was made
November 16, 1990, when President George Bush signed into law the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).  NAGPRA, under
the official jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, is designed
to reduce the international market by cataloguing all artifacts,
beginning with museum collections. Furthermore, NAGPRA aims to
repatriate all sacred objects and human remains still contained within
or upon archaeological sites. 

NAGPRA, while concerned with the reduction of illegal trafficking and
vandalism, is also concerned with the cultural effects upon Native
Americans.  Looting, vandalism, and the illegal trade creates ethical
problems, as the ancestors and their objects from burial are very
important to Native American Indians. 

Traditional Native Americans see an essential relationship between
humans and the objects they create.  Respect of all life elements --
rocks, trees, clay -- is necessary because we understand our inseparable
relationship with every part of our world. 

This is why we honor our ancestors and the objects they created.  This
honoring allows us to remember our past and natural process of
transformation--of breathing, living, dying, and becoming one with the
natural world.(9)  Native American customs thus forbid the disturbance
of graves and burial sites. This has contributed to problems even within
purely archaeological studies.  Religious artifacts and sacred sites are
crucial cultural resources, essential to the way of life of the Native
Americans.  The cultural implications of the trade are vast and
disturbing. 

NAGPRA has assisted in promoting heritage values in archaeological
resource management and federal land protection. It has helped bring
culture to the forefront of policy with regard to this area of concern. 
Currently there are over 200 proposals for NAGPRA grants, although
competing for a limited number of funds.  Furthermore, the Russian
government is examining NAGPRA in light of its own problems with illegal
looting and trade of stolen artifacts.(10)  Education among the public
is also increasing.  A new video from the National Park Service is now
shown in all middle and high schools in Arizona, New Mexico, southern
Utah and southwestern Colorado.  Silent Witness: Protecting American
Indian Archaeological Heritage is designed to increase awareness of
these issues among the young, to stem future problems.(11)  In addition,
Indian cultural centers and museums are on the rise across the country. 
Within a few years, the Smithsonian Institution plans to add The Museum
of the American Indian to its mall of museums. 

Also contributing to recent optimism is the fact that federal law
enforcement officers and the legal industry have become more familiar
with both ARPA and NAGPRA and their concerns, thus permitting the
increased use of these acts in prosecutions.  In fact, NAGPRA just
received its first conviction in late March 1995.  A collector in
Virginia was convicted of selling dozens of artifacts, including an
Indian leg bone from the Little Bighorn National Monument site (of
General Custer fame) in Montana.  The source in Montana was also
arrested and the Maryland buyer has been indicted in Kentucky for
attempting to auction the artifacts.(12)  Nevertheless, looting remains
a tremendous problem.  Resource management is but one lingering concern.
 These artifacts represent a vital part of American history:  their
creators are gone and the artifacts cannot be replaced. 


3. Related Cases

     CEDARS case 

     BRONZE case 

     GUANO case 

     BULB case    

Keyword Clusters     

     (1): Trade Product            = ARTIFact 

     (2): Bio-geography            = DRY 

     (3): Environmental Problem    = HISTory 


4. Draft Author:
 Amy Van Allen 


  II. Legal Clusters


5. Discourse and Status:

No one discounts the devastation that has resulted from the looting and
vandalism.  In addition, the tremendous effect of the international
market is indisputable.  While most countries are establishing
agreements to protect cultural resources, there is not yet an
international agreement to this effect.  The U.S. is now aware of the
situation, as are most countries who have similar sites, such as Peru,
Mexico, Thailand, and Egypt.  Russia is currently exploring American
attempts to control the situation to determine their applicability to
the similar Russian cases. 


6. Forum and Scope:
 USA and UNILATeral 

The basis for the resolution of the problem is U.S. law. The U.S. must
be able to educate the public about artifacts and archaeology, as well
as to adequately prosecute looters and vandals.  In addition, a broad
international law regarding the illegal sale of artifacts must be
enacted. 


7. Decision Breadth:
 1 (USA) 


8. Legal Standing:
 LAW 

The Acts of NAGPRA, ARPA and Antiquities are punishable and enforceable
by U.S. law.  Vandals and looters may be prosecuted under these laws,
although their use has proved difficult. NAGPRA, in March 1995, won its
first conviction.  


  III. Geographic Clusters


9. Geographic Locations

a. Geographic Domain: North America 

b. Geographic Site: Western North America        

c. Geographic Impact: USA  


10. Sub-National Factors:
 YES 

Indian Reservations are, in essence, sub-national factors. They are
private lands belonging the tribes.  These sovereign territories and
their contents are protected by U.S. law.  


11. Type of Habitat:
 DRY 

Most of the southwestern United States, on which this argument centers,
is dry land, if not desert.  More temperate climates are found to the
north and east. 


  IV. Trade Clusters


12. Type of Measure:
 Regulatory Ban [REGBAN] 

The strongest measure the U.S. Government is using to protect against
further illegal trade is the inventorying all of items, beginning with
museum collections.  This is stipulated by NAGPRA.  The hope is that
knowledge of the artifacts will decrease the likelihood of their
disappearance.  Greater surveying of the lands is crucial here. 


13. Direct v. Indirect Impacts:
 INDirect 

U.S. regulations, if successful, will dramatically reduce the number of
Native American artifacts on the international art market.  It would
also have a profound effect upon preserving archaeological sites and
American Indian heritage.  This hope is contingent upon greater public
awareness of the impact of the destruction. 


14. Relation of Trade Measure to Environmental Impact

a. Directly Related to Product:  YES ARTifacts         

b. Indirectly Related to Product:  NO      

c. Not Related to Product:  NO             

d. Related to Process:  NO               


15. Trade Product Identification:
 CRAFTS 

The trade is in final products, primarily crafts. Looted artifacts from
archaeological sites center around pottery.  


16. Economic Data
  

The impact here is in money lost to the federal government in the value
of artifacts.  Some would also argue that these objects are
irreplaceable and that history renders them priceless. 


17. Impact of Trade Restriction:
 BAN 

If successful, the U.S. will reduce the number of stolen artifacts on
the international black market.  This would drastically raise the price
of objects there currently, as well as those from private collections
that are put up for sale. 


18. Industry Sector:
 NOTH  


19. Exporters and Importers:
 USA and MANY 


  V. Environment Clusters


20. Environmental Problem Type:
 HISTORY 


21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species

Name:  MANY           

Type:  MANY         

Diversity:  MANY    


22. Resource Impact and Effect:
 HIGH and PRODuct 

This case, broadly, is a resource depletion problem. Although the
environment itself is not directly affected by the removal of the
artifacts (except for the destructive means often used to obtain them),
the issue is the depletion of cultural resources.  


23. Urgency of Problem:
 HIGH and 100s of years 


24. Substitutes:
 NA 

These objects cannot be replaced, since they come from ancient and
deceased cultures.  There are no substitutes.  See the EGYPT case. 


  VI. Other Factors


25. Culture:
 YES 

This issue is culturally-based.  The U.S. Government is attempting to
protect the historical culture of the Native Americans as well as their
religious sentiments regarding ceremonial and sacred objects and the
dead.  These objects are traditional parts of Native American history. 
They serve as links with ancestors, through common rituals and
ceremonies. Native Americans, in addition, believe in the links through
all forms of life, especially through materials from the earth. 


26. Trans-Boundary Issues:
 NO 


27. Rights:
 YES 

Looting of the artifacts destroys Native American culture. This, in
turn, affects their history and ceremonies.  The Native Americans, as a
result, are harmed.  


28. Relevant Literature

Federal Archaeology.  7, no. 2 (Summer 1994). 

Green, Ernestene L.  Ethics and Values in Archaeology.  New York: The
Free Press.  1984. 

Harrington, Spencer P.M.  "The Looting of Arkansas." Archaeology.  44,
no. 3 (May/June 1991): 22-30. 

Hillerman, Tony.  A Thief of Time.  New York: Harper &
Row, 1988. 

Lipe, William D.  "Strategies for Resource Protection: Results from Save
the Past for the Future."  SAA Bulletin 12, no. 5 (November/December
1994): 4-7. 

Meyer, Karl E.  The Plundered Past.  New York: Atheneum. 1973. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee. 
"Progress on Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act: A Report to Congress."  June 1993. 

Neary, John.  "A Legacy of Wanton Thievery."  Archaeology. 46, no. 5
(September/October 1993): 57-59. 

Sebastian, Lynne.  "Looting and the Law: The View from New Mexico." 
Archaeology.  43, no. 6 (November/December 1990): 52. 

Society for American Archaeology.  Save the Past for the Future: Actions
for the '90s.  Final Report, Taos Conference on Preventing
Archaeological Looting and Vandalism.  Washington, D.C.: SAA, 1990. 

"Special Report: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act."  Federal Archaeology.  7, no. 3 (Fall/Winter 1995). 

U.S. Congress.  House of Representatives.  Subcommittee on General
Oversight and Investigations.  Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs.  "The Destruction of America's Archaeological Heritage: Looting
and Vandalism of Indian Archaeological Sites in the Four Corners States
of the Southwest."  February, 1988. 


References

1.   In his many novels, Tony Hillerman describes these various
processes for looting archaeological sites.  In particular, see A Thief
of Time. 

2.   U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on General
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
"The Destruction of America's Archaeological Heritage: Looting and
Vandalism of Indian Archaeological Sites in the Four Corners States of
the Southwest."  February, 1988, 1-5. 

3.   Ibid., 6-39. 

4.   John Neary, "A Legacy of Wanton Thievery," Archaeology 46, no. 5
(September/October 1993): 57. 

5.   Ibid., 12. 

6.   Ibid., 9. 

7.   Neary 59. 

8.   Ibid. 

9.   Tessie Naranjo, "Thought on Two Worldviews," Federal Archaeology,
7, no. 3 (Fall/Winter 1995): 16. 

10.  "NAGPRA News," Federal Archaeology, 7, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 44-45. 

11.  "Silent Witness: Learning Guide Testifies to Loss of Native
American Treasures," Federal Archaeology, 7, no. 3 (Fall/Winter 1995):
8. 

12.  New Releases from the National Park Service, March 1995. 
----------------

Go To Super Page

Go to All Cases

Go to TED Categories

----------------