by Craig Childs
Poisoned artifacts have been reported in numerous sources, including Merrik Bush-Pirkle, “Confronting a Tainted History,” SFSU Magazine 1, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 11–13; Niccolo Caldararo, Lee Davis, David Hostler, Shawn Kane, and Peter Palmer, “Pesticide Testing of Hoopa Tribe Repatriated Regalia: Taking the Samples,” Collection Forum 16, no. 63 (Summer 2001): 55–62; Lisa Goldberg, “A History of Pest Control Measures in the Anthropology Collections, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 35 (1996): 23–43; Micah Loma’omvaya, “NAGPRA Artifact Repatriation and Pesticides Contamination: Human Exposure to Pesticide Residue through Hopi Culture Use,” presented at Special Session on Pesticides and Repatriation, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, August 22, 2000; Micah Loma’omvaya, “NAGPRA Artifact Repatriation and Pesticides Contamination: Human Exposure to Pesticide Residue through Hopi Culture Use (Summary),” Collection Forum 16, no. 63 (Summer 2001): 30–37; and Nancy Odegaard and Alyce Sadongei, “The Issue of Pesticides on Native American Cultural Objects: A Report on Conservation and Education Activities at University of Arizona,” Collection Forum 16, no. 63 (Summer 2001): 12–18. Loma’omvaya supplies the most thorough accounts, along with Nancy Odegaard’s book Old Poisons, New Problems: A Museum Resource for Managing Contaminated Cultural Materials (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2005).
CHAPTER 3: TREASURE HUNTERS
The relationship between archaeology and physical touch is well explored in Elizabeth Pye, ed., The Power of Touch: Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage Contexts (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2007). In her contribution to the book, Pye describes touching antiquities: “This contact is unlike the distanced gaze of the viewer. Objects can touch us as much as we can touch them. Handling an ancient object such as a flint tool or copper alloy axe-head brings us closer to its prehistoric maker and also sends a powerful message about the maker’s skill in manipulating raw material.”
The case of Robert Schroeder and Newspaper Rock came from letters exchanged with Schroeder and from a report filed by the apprehending ranger.
CHAPTER 4: UNSEEN THINGS
What I consider the best reading and most up-to-date description of scientific perspectives around the Four Corners comes from Stephen Lekson, A History of the Ancient Southwest (Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press, 2009).
CHAPTER 5: DIGGERS
For artifact trade out of St. Lawrence Island, I relied almost entirely on personal communication with Julie Hollowell and on her published work. Throughout the latter she maintains a readable style and a remarkably open mind. Hollowell has weathered heavy criticism for her more conservative approaches to archaeological ethics, which alone makes her work worth reading. A handful of key pieces from Hollowell are “When Archaeological Artifacts Are Commodities: Dilemmas Faced by Native Villages of Alaska’s Bering Strait,” in T. Peck and E. Siegfried, eds., Indigenous People and Heritage (Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Archaeological Association, 2003), pp. 298–312; “When Artifacts Are Commodities,” in K. D. Vitelli and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds., Archaeological Ethics (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2006); “St. Lawrence Island’s Legal Market in Archaeological Goods,” in N. Brodie, M. Kersel, C. Luke, and K. W. Tubb, eds., Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade, Cultural Heritage Studies Series (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006), pp. 98–132; and “Ancient Ivories from the Bering Strait: Lessons from a Legal Market in Antiquities,” Athena Review 43, no. 3 (2007): 56–66.
The late professor Andrew A. Kerr’s work in southeast Utah in the 1920s comes mainly from the research of Winston Hurst. Personal communication with Hurst was crucial for much of this chapter, though his input was not sought for the 2009 raids.
Background on Earl Shumway as pothunter comes from personal communication with arresting officers and Bureau of Land Management agents who participated in a variety of investigations, as well as years of candid conversations with local residents around Bluff and Blanding, Utah.
Data on the 2009 Four Corners raid comes from unsealed affidavits, warrants, and indictments in the case, which outline the legal view of this local illicit artifact market. One warrant describes “a large (‘illegal network’) of individuals who regularly pillage archaeological sites, many unknown to the scientific community and many which involve funerary (burial) sites, on public land in the four corners area. Besides excavators or ‘diggers’, other individuals in the illegal network are dealers who buy, sell, and transport this material and collectors who are end users.” The warrant goes on to explain, “The illegal network is a close knit entity. Individuals who deal in stolen archaeological objects are usually careful to disguise the site of origin. This is usually done by identifying the site of origin as leased and/or private property. Objects typically are sold with a letter of provenance which acts as a sort of title document. Letters of provenance usually list the individual who found the item, identify the location where it was found, and include assurances that the item was not illegally collected from public or Indian lands. For most transactions involved in this investigation, the Source provided a blank letter of provenance to the seller, who then represented that the artifact came from leased and/or private land. In fact, the seller recovered or knew the item was recovered on public and/or Indian land. The seller then fills out the blank letter of provenance with the false information. Further, the seller identifies for the Source on a topographic land use map, the real public land location from which the item was recovered. This is done by the seller who points to the location on the map from where the item was recovered or by circling the location on the map.”
To juxtapose this strictly legal vantage, and to voice a more local, personal perspective, I relied primarily on conversations with Judy Seiler, who was ultimately advised by legal counsel to stop talking with me.
CHAPTER 6: GOING TO MARKET
The setting for black-market artifact trade out of Guatemala is well described in Jeremy McDermott’s article “Looting a Lost Civilization,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 7, 2001. I also relied on personal communication with David Freidel (Harvard University), Richard Hansen (Idaho State University), and William Saturno (Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences). The two stelae now in the Kimbell and Cleveland museums were reported by National Public Radio, May 28, 2007, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10416454, and by Angela M. H. Schuster, “The Search for Site Q,” Archaeology 50, no. 5 (September/October 1997): 42–45.
The global black market is well described by journalist Roger Atwood in his book Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004). Another important resource is Peter Watson and Cecilia Todeschini’s The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities (New York: Public-Affairs, 2007).
Thomas Hoving died at the age of seventy-eight, a year after I interviewed him. His story about the Euphronios krater can be found in his book Making the Mummies Dance: Inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993) and online in his artnet article “Super Art Gems of New York City,” http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/FEATURES/hoving/hoving6-29-01.asp. Detailed information on the Euphronios comes from Michael Kimmelman’s articles for the New York Times, including “Stolen Beauty: A Greek Urn’s Underworld,” July 7, 2009. A clear overview of the purchase history of the Euphronios can be found in Lawrence Van Gelder’s New York Times piece “The Mysterious Trail of a Treasure, Retraced,” February 5, 2006. The original heavy journalism on the subject in the 1970s came from Nicholas Gage writing for the New York Times.
Suzan Mazur has written extensively on Robert Hecht’s involvement with the Euphronios and other pieces of antiquity.
The sale of the Guennol Lioness was reported by Maria Baugh in “Antiquities: The Hottest Investment,” Time, December 12, 2007.
Hicham Aboutaam is fre
quently sought out by journalists asking about trends in the antiquities market. He gave a phone interview for this chapter. Articles used for reference include “Yemeni Stele Returns to Mideast Home,” the New York Sun, December 2, 2004; “Hey, That’s Our Art!,” BusinessWeek, May 16, 2006; and “Out of Egypt,” St. Louis News, February 15, 2006. An online reference to the overall state of the antiquities trade, including Aboutaam’s involvement, is “Really Old Money,” cnn.com, http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/23/magazines/fortune/antiquities_hira.fortune/index.htm, last updated October 23, 2008. Phoenix Ancient Art maintains its own informative website, http://www.phoenixancientart.com/.
Key allegations in the Silk Roads Gallery case come from the unsealed warrant. Jason Felch, staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, did most of the reporting, including “Raids Suggest a Deeper Network of Looted Art,” January 25, 2008, and “Intrigue but No Glamour for Smuggling Case Figure,” January 31, 2008. Felch also reported on Roxanna Brown’s case and her death in “A Scholar’s Journey Leads through War, Addiction and Injury to Arrest,” September 11, 2008, and “Her Career Revived, Scholar Turns Tipster,” September 12, 2008. Other useful articles came from Edward Wyatt writing for the New York Times. Details of communication between Brown and other players in the Silk Roads Gallery case, including letters and e-mails, were photocopied and attached to the original warrant.
An interview with Fred Brown supplied the conclusion to this chapter as he defended his deceased sister’s reputation. After her death, the case surrounding the Silk Roads Gallery came to an apparent standstill, and a year later, the U.S. attorney’s office in Seattle, Washington, settled a lawsuit with Brown’s family, paying $880,000 to her estate. The further fallout from this probe is described in Edward Wyatt’s article “Papers Show Wider Focus in Inquiry of Artifacts,” New York Times, January 30, 2008.
CHAPTER 7: A HISTORY OF URGES
Personal communication with Dr. Wang Jiqing, Lanzhou University, Gansu Province, China, provided necessary background on Wang Yuanlu.
Piecing together the story of Aurel Stein in the Taklamakan, I relied on several secondary sources, including Christoph Baumer, Southern Silk Road: In the Footsteps of Sir Aurel Stein and Sven Hedin (Bangkok: White Orchid Books, 2000); Jeannette Mirsky, Sir Aurel Stein: Archaeological Explorer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); Peter Hopkirk, Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984); and Susan Whitfield, Aurel Stein on the Silk Road (Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2004).
Original documentation about Stein’s travels came from reports authored by Stein himself: Ancient Khotan: Detailed Report of Archaeological Explorations in Chinese Turkestan, 2 vols., reprint (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907); Sand-Buried Ruins of Khotan: Personal Narrative of a Journey of Archaeological and Geographical Exploration in Chinese Turkestan (London: Hurst, 1904); Ruins of Desert Cathay: Personal Narrative of Explorations in Central Asia and Westernmost China (London: Macmillan, 1912); Preliminary Report on a Journey of Archaeological and Topographical Exploration in Chinese Turkestan (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1901); and The Thousand Buddhas: Ancient Buddhist Paintings from the Cave-Temples of Tun-huang on the Western Frontier of China, Recovered and Described by Aurel Stein (London: Quaritch, 1921).
An important overview of the art in the Caves of the Thousand Buddhas can be found in Roderick Whitfield’s Caves of the Singing Sands: Buddhist Art from the Silk Road (London: Textile and Art Publications, 1995). I also took some of the description of individual murals from plates in The Sacred Oasis: Caves of the Thousand Buddhas, Tun Huang (London: Faber & Faber, 1953).
The International Dunhuang Project has an excellent website for both the history of the caves and detailed investigation of what was found in them at http://idp.bl.uk/.
China’s increased purchasing power is reported by Souren Melikian in “Chinese Bidders Conquer Market,” New York Times, April 2, 2010.
CHAPTER 8: THE CHOSEN ONES
Randall McGuire wrote about his experience as an archaeologist in Mexico in an essay entitled “The Gringo Stigma” in K. D. Vitelli and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds., Archaeological Ethics (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2006). This particular book is an excellent compendium of sometimes conflicting perspectives that have been published by scholars and journalists in Archaeology magazine, and McGuire’s chapter is the book’s most candid explanation of an archaeologist’s point of view.
Michael Shanks’s quote comes from his book Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology (London and New York: Routledge, 1992).
Charles Bowden’s quote comes from a book he published with photographer Michael Berman, Inferno (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006).
Accounts of Gustaf Nordenskiöld are from original newspaper sources and Judith and David Reynolds, Nordenskiöld of Mesa Verde (Xlibris, 2006).
The quote from Layton and Wallace comes from their chapter “Is Culture a Commodity?” in Chris Scarre and Geoffrey Scarre, eds., The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
In 2000, the Society for American Archaeology laid out ethical principles for archaeologists: “The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological materials and sites, archaeological collections, records, and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record. Stewards are both caretakers and advocates for the archaeological record for the benefit of all people; as they investigate and interpret the record, they should use the specialized knowledge they gain to promote understanding and support for its long-term preservation.”
Though this preamble sounds watertight, its focus on stewardship by professional archaeologists has been questioned. Leo Groarke and Gary Warrick, writing in Chris Scarre and Geoffrey Scarre, eds., The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), say, “The problem is that the SAA principle does not clearly identify [the] owners, and in this way fails to identify the ‘master’ whose interest will determine the obligations of the archaeologist-as-steward.”
Great Plains archaeologist Jason LaBelle adds, in Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, eds., Ethical Issues in Archaeology (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press and Society for American Archaeology, 2003): “Although some might think otherwise, the past clearly does not belong to a chosen few with university degrees, but instead belongs to a rich patchwork of communities, including the people who left the material originally, their descendants, the modern local community (including collectors), and interested researchers, who often are from very distant lands, both politically and geographically. Developing a dialog with all of these groups certainly strengthens our discipline as a whole.”
Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson, two leading voices in the realm of archaeology, ethics, and Native America, emphasize, “Despite the significant shift in power stemming from ownership and control of important parts of the archaeological record, archaeologists in the United States are still allotted more control and power over heritage resources and the past they represent than any other group.” This appeared in a chapter they coauthored in K. D. Vitelli and C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds., Archaeological Ethics (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2006).
George Peabody’s comments came from Reports of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology in Connection with Harvard University, vol. 1, 1868–1876 (Salem, MA: Salem Press, 1876).
Numbers of artifacts in storage were derived from A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Preservation, 2005). This is the first comprehensive survey ever conducted of the condition and preservation needs of all U.S. collecti
ons held in the public trust, and it offers a sweeping but detailed perspective of what is happening inside public collections.
Frederick Matthew Wiseman’s response to the current archaeological hierarchy can be found in his book The Voice of the Dawn (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2001).
CHAPTER 9: SALVAGE ARCHAEOLOGY
Philosopher Geoffrey Scarre’s quote about taking liberties with the dead comes from the book he edited with his brother, the archaeologist Chris Scarre, The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). A predominantly academic book, this is a primary resource, its contributors offering some of the best writing on the deeper philosophical issues surrounding archaeology. More than any other, this book gets at the heart of the matter of who rightfully owns the past and how professionals deal with ensuing dilemmas.
CHAPTER 10: THE GOLDEN JAR
Ron Stodghill’s March 18, 2007, New York Times piece “Do You Know Where That Art Has Been?” details the discovery and sale of Apollo the Lizard Slayer. Another useful article on the subject is Steven Litt’s September 12, 2004, Cleveland Plain Dealer article “A God of Myth Cloaked in Mystery.”
The finding of repainted, refired vessels comes from personal communication with Patty Crown and an article she wrote with W. H. Wills, “Modifying Pottery and Kivas at Chaco: Pentimento, Restoration, or Renewal?,” in American Antiquity 68, no. 3 (2003): 511–532.
CHAPTER 11: HOUSES OF OBSESSION
Charles Stanish argues that Internet sales of antiquities have actually reduced looting in “Forging Ahead: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love eBay,” Archaeology 64, no. 3 (May/June 2009), also found at http://www.archaeology.org/0905/etc/insider.html. Arguments against his notion soon appeared in blogs, including Larry Rothfield’s The Punching Bag, http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/safecorner-cultural-heritage-in-danger/e637d51a1ee52e51a7b7c5410c3eb116, where Rothfield wrote, “On a quick first read, it seems logically persuasive, with some caveats. One is that if eBay is expanding the market then even if fakes bring the prices down relative to what a market with lower level of supply would charge, the increase in the number of potential buyers might drive the price back up, leaving the incentive to loot about what it was before.”
