LOOTING AND VANDALISM OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES

Martin E. McAllister

Introduction

The prehistoric and historic archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands throughout the United States comprise a large portion of this country's publicly owned national heritage. Tragically, they are being looted and vandalized at an alarming rate with each passing year. If this pattern of destruction is not substantially reduced in the near future, whole categories of the more impressive archaeological resource sites formerly present on federal and Indian lands soon will cease to exist and many others will survive only as heavily damaged remnants of what they originally were. A large portion of the artifacts and other materials of interest they once contained also will be lost and their potential to yield information about past human behavior will be greatly diminished (see Nickens this volume for further discussion of the destructive processes which lead to the loss of archeological data).

This article will deal with four aspects of the archaeological looting and vandalism problem on federal and Indian lands. Through reference to recent National Park Service (1989a, 1989b) and General Accounting Office (1987) findings, the magnitude of the current situation will be reviewed briefly, as will federal and tribal enforcement efforts. The remainder of the article is devoted to the situational context of looting and vandalism on federal and Indian lands and the behavior associated with these activities, topics which are currently addressed in only a few other studies (e.g. Nickens et al. 1981; Gramann and Vander Stoep 1986; Gramann and Vander Stoep 1987; Vander Stoep and Gramann 1987; McAllister 1988).

The Current Magnitude of the Problem

Statistics assembled annually by the Archeological Assistance Division of the National Park Service for fiscal years 1985 through 1987 show that the number of incidents of archaeological looting and vandalism reported by federal land managing agencies nationwide, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was 1,720 and it is estimated that this figure may represent as little as 25 percent or less of the actual total (1989a:1-2; 1989b:Chapter 5, page 3). These statistics also reveal a 51 percent rise in documented incidents over the three year period. Some of this increase is due to improved reporting, but unfortunately it is obvious that rather than decreasing the overall frequency of looting and vandalism on federal and Indian lands continues to grow. In addition, in the recent regional study of this problem conducted for Congress by the General Accounting Office, it was found that an estimated 32 percent of the known sites on National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service lands in the Southwest are already damaged by looting and vandalism and another 33 percent are in an unknown condition and potentially also affected (1987:22). These figures should force all those concerned with protecting the nation's archaeological resources to analyze the nature of the looting and vandalism problem (see King this volume for additional discussion of the magnitude of the looting problem).

Recent Enforcement Efforts

Recent federal and tribal law enforcement efforts to combat archaeological looting and vandalism have been only partially successful (see McManamon this volume for a discussion of federal efforts and Anyon this volume for a discussion of tribal efforts. also see Rogers this volume for a discussion of model Tribal laws). The National Park Service statistics for fiscal years 1985 through 1987 show that only 183 or approximately 11 percent of the 1,720 incidents reported by federal land managing agencies resulted in arrests or citations (1989a:10-16; 1989b:Chapter 5, page 3). Some would consider this to be a low enforcement rate, especially since the documented incidents probably represent only a fraction of those actually occurring. These statistics also show that there were at least 94 convictions under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and other laws and regulations during this period so the record for prosecuting the looters and vandals apprehended is good (approximately 51%).

It is interesting to note that between 1985 and 1987 there were more prosecutions of looters and vandals under other laws and regulations than under ARPA (National Park Service 1989a:10-16; 1989b:Chapter 5, page 3). Also surprising was the fact that there was not a felony conviction by a jury in an ARPA case until November of 1987 (U.S. v. Cortiana). This situation probably was due to a continuing lack of familiarity with ARPA versus other commonly used means of prosecution and also to weaknesses in the law which now apparently have been rectified by the 1988 amendments (see Cheek, Neumann, and Rogers this volume for discussions of the 1988 ARPA amendments).

The statistics presented here can be interpreted either positively or negatively in assessing the effectiveness of recent federal and tribal law enforcement efforts to combat archaeological looting and vandalism. They certainly represent a significant advance over the meager record of success achieved with the Antiquities Act in the years between 1906 and 1979 (according to currently available information, there were a total of fewer than 20 cases in which charges against looters and vandals were filed under the Antiquities act during this 73 year period). Regardless of how these statistics are viewed, there is obviously a need for increased levels of enforcement until the number of violations occurring now can be substantially reduced through both enforcement and other deterrents. Truly effective deterrence of archaeological looting and vandalism will require a greater understanding of why and how these acts occur.

The Situational Context of Archaeological Looting and Vandalism

Four unfortunate situations contribute significantly to creating the archaeological looting and vandalism problem which exists in this country. Together they make effective solutions much more difficult than would be the case otherwise. Sadly, it is unlikely that any of these situations will change to any great degree in the future.

Of major importance is the proprietary status of archeological resources on private land in the United States. Unlike most other countries in the world where archaeological resources are public property wherever they are found, our cultural heritage belongs to the land owner when located on private property. Consequently, the removal or destruction of archaeological resources on private property by the owner or with their permission is not generally illegal except when specific items, such as human graves, are protected by state or local law. Of course, looters and vandals may be aware of this fact and many rationalize their actions by the logic that what is legal on private property also should be legal on federal and Indian lands. Moreover, if apprehended on these lands, they may claim they thought it was private property.

Because archaeological resources may be privately owned, possession of prehistoric and historic materials also is not prohibited, providing that they were legally obtained. The only exceptions to this rule is National Park Service regulations which make possession of any such items illegal within the boundaries of National Parks. Elsewhere on federal or Indian lands, looters and dealers found with archaeological materials may state that they came from private property regardless of their actual origin.

A related problem is the difficulty of determining where archaeological materials came from once they are removed from that location. These materials generally have no inherent characteristics which can be used to definitely identify where they were originally discovered. Obviously then, when looters are found with items in their possession which are suspected to be from federal or Indian lands, it will be difficult to prove this fact unless they were observed removing them or admit to having done so. This makes prosecution of looters and dealers difficult or impossible in many cases.

Finally, it is also unfortunate that there is no law in the United States prohibiting the sale of archaeological materials or at least those not proven to be obtained legally from private land. ARPA makes it illegal to traffic in artifacts and other protected items removed without authorization from federal or Indian lands, but as has been noted, establishing that they came from such lands may be difficult or impossible. It is unlikely that most dealers ask looters if they operate legally and when they do, the answer received often may not be true. A law prohibiting the sale of all archaeological materials or those without proper documentation would be countered with an active black market trade, but would make enforcement easier.

Looting and Vandalism Behavior

The most reliable information currently available on looting and vandalism behavior on federal and Indian lands is statistical data on violations which can be generated from sources such as the LOOT Clearinghouse, a computerized archival database maintained by the Archeological Assistance Division of the National Park Service (see Knoll this volume for a discussion of the LOOT clearinghouse). As valuable as these data are, they can be used primarily only to identify basic patterns in the occurrence of looting and vandalism, such as what types of sites are most commonly targeted. They are less useful in analyzing why such behavior exists.

Except for a few regional studies (e.g. Nickens et al. 1981:81-127; 165-168), true behavioral research dealing specifically with archaeological looting and vandalism has been almost totally neglected until very recently. Fortunately, sociologists with expertise on vandalism affecting other types of resources are now beginning to analyze the archaeological problem, but widely applicable findings on the participants and their roles in this behavior are still in the future. Some observations based on long experience with archaeological looting and vandalism are presented here, but should be regarded as very basic and subject to extensive refinement as the necessary behavioral research begins to be accomplished.

Probably the most perplexing aspect of the problem for those entrusted with the protection of archaeological resources is wanton vandalism carried out for the intrinsic purpose of destroying these remains. This senseless destruction occurs in a wide variety of forms, but there are several common types. Rock art and other types of resources are regularly attacked by graffiti, shooting, and other forms of defacement. Structural remains at prehistoric and historic sites, such as walls and roofs, are frequently torn down or otherwise intentionally damaged. Four wheel drive vehicles, motorcycles and other all terrain vehicles are often deliberately driven over and through archaeological sites permanently scarring or destroying them.

Unlike vandalism, the basic motivations for looting and collecting archaeological materials are more obvious. This behavior is caused by the widespread fascination with the past and the resulting desire to possess objects from earlier time periods which many people experience at some point in time. Clearly, there would be no looting and collecting of archaeological materials if no one were interested in them. It is ironic that the fascination with the past which motivates all positive public behavior toward archaeological resources also causes so much damage and destruction.

Deriving from the desire to possess physical remains of the past are the monetary values which have come to be associated with certain types of archaeological materials. Even relatively common artifacts such as prehistoric projectile points and Civil War minie balls are sought after and have value though they usually sell for only a few dollars apiece. On the other hand, rare or exotic types of archaeological materials are often offered for sale for astronomical prices and some collectors appraise the worth of their collections in the millions of dollars. These dollar values obviously induce some looters to attack archaeological sites searching for the types of items which bring high prices.

The most numerous participants in looting behavior are those identified as "hobbyist" looters who remove artifacts and other materials from archaeological sites primarily because of personal interest in the past and the desire to start or enhance their own collections. This group encompasses a wide variety of individuals from one time looters to avid devotees, many of who have some particular type of interest such as surface arrowhead collecting or metal detecting at Civil War battlefields. The more active participants view their behavior as a legitimate hobby and participate openly in well organized clubs or associations, as well as supporting the publication of a number of newsletters and journals.

The other major group engaging in looting behavior are individuals referred to as "commercial" looters who systematically remove artifacts and other materials from archaeological resource sites specifically for the purpose of profiting from their sale in the market which exists for these items. Some percentage started their careers as hobbyist looters, but monetary gain has replaced interest as the primary motivating factor. There are, in fact, individuals in the United States today who are full time commercial looters and many others who substantially supplement their regular sources of income by this activity. The profit potential of commercial looting is indicated not only by the monetary values of collectible items but also by the types of expensive equipment in use, including earth moving machinery, all terrain vehicles, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, large, ocean-going dive boats, and sophisticated terrestrial and underwater metal detectors.

Relative to the hobbyists, the commercially motivated individuals are a small, clandestine group who by their own admissions acknowledge that they intentionally and illegally loot archaeological sites on federal and Indian lands. Their knowledge that they are breaking the law is demonstrated by the fact that they often employ anti-detection and alarm strategies, such as camouflage clothing, concealment of vehicles away from site locations, night time and other off hour activities, and use of radio scanners and lookouts. In addition, many are considered to be dangerous because they are likely be armed and some have openly threatened to resist arrest.

Hobbyist looters commonly attempt to rationalize their activities by claiming that they do much less harm than commercial looters. It is true that in many parts of the country, commercially motivated individuals have heavily impacted the types of sites known to contain valuable items and should continue to be seen as a major threat to archaeological resources. Certainly, a commercial looter systematically ravaging a site with a bulldozer or a back hoe will do more damage than someone surface collecting or digging with a garden trowel or a shovel. Quantitatively, however, their numbers are far lower than those in the ranks of the hobbyist looters and always have been. Only a few people have the time, equipment and personal inclination it takes to make all or a large part of their income looting archaeological sites for a profit, while many collect artifacts as a hobby. In addition, sites containing desirable archaeological materials are frequently targeted repeatedly by large numbers of hobbyists and they often seriously damage or completely destroy them by digging with tools or simply by surface collecting, especially when only surface remains are present. Both the shear force of their numbers and the intensity of their activities cause the cumulative effect of hobbyist looting to be one of the most destructive factors affecting archaeological resources in the United States today. Also, as they become more actively involved in this pastime, some hobbyists begin to alter their status by participating in the buying and selling of collectible items and some eventually become true commercial looters.

Another important role in the commercial aspect of looting and collecting behavior is occupied by a wide range of dealers who act as middlemen, buying and selling marketable items for a profit. The most sophisticated dealers operate large, very lucrative businesses with galleries or showrooms in major cities, resorts and art centers, and often are involved in both the domestic and international trade in archeological materials. It has been reported that some higher level dealers actually employ commercial looters to obtain sought after items. At the other end of the spectrum are part time dealers in small towns or rural areas who buy and sell out of their homes or vehicles and also may be looting sites themselves.

Their is also a cadre of what can be called support specialist who provide technical assistance to looters, dealers, and collectors. Some individuals with backgrounds in art history and related fields have become experts in determining the commercial worth of prehistoric and historic items and are employed by dealers and collectors as consultants. Others are paid for their expertise in restoring damaged artifacts. Unfortunately, a few individuals with formal archaeological training, sometimes referred to as "rogue" archaeologists, have been known to work for looters and dealers. They help locate, remove and sell collectible items as well as serving as defense expert witnesses when the need arises. In some western states at least, certain attorneys are recognized authorities in the area of defending accused violators of archaeological protection statutes. Also, there are a number of publishers who specialize in producing and distributing newsletters, magazines and books which provide information on looting and collecting archaeological material. Others who intentionally or unintentionally fall into this category are those who supply equipment or services which aid looters such as metal detector manufactures and dealers, charter dive boat owners and operators, and outfitter guides. Of course, there may be other as yet unidentified specialists who are also involved.

Collectors of various types make up the final major group in this behavioral complex and are certainly one of the most important factors since they create the demand for artifacts and other archaeological materials in the first place. One obvious and significant group of collectors is comprised of hobbyist looters whose basic motivation for removing items from sites is to add them to their personal collections. Another category consists of the commercial faction, the looters, dealers and their support specialists, who are primarily interested in archaeological materials from a profit standpoint but also often have personal collections of highly prized pieces which they do not wish to sell. A third important group can be referred to as the "pure" collectors who find prehistoric and historic objects appealing and possess them out of interest but will only add to their collections by purchasing from dealers or looters because they have no inclination to become directly involved in site looting. Also, there are individuals who are not particularly attracted to archaeological materials for aesthetic reasons but buy and hold them mainly for investment purposes due to their strong potential to increase in value over time. Similarly, owners of so-called private museums where large collections of looted materials may be exhibited to the public for an admission fee often seek to obtain additional items in order to enhance their business.

FIGURE 1. Roles in the archaeological looting and collecting network.

The fact that hobbyist looters as well as many members of the commercial interest faction are also collectors demonstrates that any one individual may play more than one role in this behavior. As is shown in the diagram of the network in Figure 1, some are, for example, simultaneously hobbyists, commercial looters, dealers and collectors. In reality, the badly needed behavioral research on this problem undoubtedly will show that the roles and patterns of interaction in archaeological looting and collecting are much more complex than we currently know.

Conclusion

Until we understand more about the why and how of archaeological looting and vandalism, efforts to deal with the current problem on federal and Indian lands will remain less effective than they can be. Therefore, research on this behavior should have the highest possible priority. This is especially true since it seems very unlikely that we will ever totally eliminate looting and vandalism behavior by substantially changing the basic situational context in which it exists. We may eventually develop new techniques that will allow us to determine more precisely where stolen archaeological materials were originally found, but it is highly improbable that we would succeed in attempts to pass laws establishing public ownership of all archaeological resources in the United States and prohibiting possession and buying and selling of the materials they contain.

Improved understanding of the problem will produce a more successful law enforcement response to active looters and vandals which in turn will have a greater deterrent effect on would be violators. Also, it will allow us to develop new and better approaches to archaeological public education and involvement programs which have the potential to prevent looting and vandalism before these acts occur. The future survival of many important archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands is dependent on significant progress in these areas in the near future.

References Cited

Gramann, J.H. and G.A. Vander Stoep (1986) Reducing Depreciative Behavior at Shiloh National Military Park. Technical Report No. 2. National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Gramann, J.H. and G.A. Vander Stoep (1987) Prosocial Behavior Theory and Natural Resource Protection: A Conceptual Synthesis. Journal of Environmental Management 24:247.

McAllister, M.E. (1988) Areas and Issues in Future Research on Archaeological Resource Protection. In Tools to Manage the Past: Research Priorities for Cultural Resources Management in the Southwest. Eds. J.A. Tainter and R.H. Hamre, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

National Park Service (1989a) Briefing statement. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

National Park Service (1989b) Federal Archeology: The Current Program, Annual Report to Congress on the Federal Archeology Program, FY 1985 and FY 1986. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Nickens, P.R., Larralde, S.L., and Tucker, G.C. Jr. (1981) A Survey of Vandalism to Archaeological Resources in Southwestern Colorado. Cultural Resources Series No. 11. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver, Colorado.

United States General Accounting Office (1987) Report to Congressional Requesters, Cultural Resources: Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources. RCED-88-3. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Vander Stoep, G.A. and Gramann, J.H. (1987) The Effect of Verbal Appeals and Incentives on Depreciative Behavior Among Youthful Park Visitors. Journal of Leisure Research 19:69.

Return to the Table of Contents

Open the Microsoft Word Version of this Article