**MODEL STATE/TRIBAL LEGISLATION AND JURY EDUCATION CO-VENTURING TO
COMBAT CULTURAL RESOURCE CRIME**

Kristine Olson Rogers

and

Elizabeth Grant

**Introduction**

In many respects, 1988-89 were banner years for archeological resource
protection and \"archaeophiles\" admirers of the ancients. National
media focused attention on the Slack Mounds burial desecration case in
Kentucky (Harden, \"Who Owns Our Past?,\" [National
Geographic]{.underline}, Mar. 1989), the Thai temple lintel
demonstrations at the Chicago Art Institute, (Wilkerson, \"Temple Lintel
Pits Thais Against Art Museum,\" [N.Y. Times]{.underline}, July 17,
1988), the Italian government\'s efforts to recover an ancient Sicilian
statue at the Getty Museum ([Connoisseur]{.underline}, Oct. 1988;
Stille, \"The Getty\'s Aphrodite: Fruit of an Illegal Dig?,\" [National
L.J.]{.underline}, Nov. 14, 1988) and a U.S. District Court judge in
Indianapolis who ordered the return of stolen Byzantine mosaics to a
Cyprus church ([Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v.
Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts, Inc.]{.underline}, 717 F. Supp. 1374
(S.D. Ind. 1989)). Federal shipwreck legislation finally made it through
the rocky shoals of Congress (P.L. No. 100-298, 102 Stat. 432 (1988)).

The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held field hearings
in the Four Corners area, which resulted in the passage of two more
significant pieces of legislation in Congress\' 100th session (Act of
Oct. 28, 1988, P.L. No. 100-555, 102 Stat. 2778; Act of Nov. 3, 1988,
P.L. No. 100-588, 102 Stat. 2983). Doonesbury lampooned Presidential
candidate Bush\'s association with the secret Skull & Bones Society at
Yale, holding its members up to ridicule as grave-robbers of Martin Van
Buren\'s tomb (G. Trudeau, Dec. 27, 1988). The Hopis were successful
(aided by a National Park Service archaeologist) in blocking potential
depredations by LucasFilm in plans to shoot its latest \"Raiders\"
episode at Mesa Verde National Park (Rocky Mountain News, 1988).

The tide has turned against archaeological looters, and it\'s time for
archaeophiles to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, when this tide
turns and the artifact supply dries up, the antiquities market also
heats up as evidenced by the record Sotheby auction prices from the
Indian Art Sale held in November 1988 in New York City (New York Times,
Dec. 11, 1988 & July 16, 1989). Hence archaeophiles need to move on
several fronts, and move [fast]{.underline}.

This analysis will begin with a summary of the recent federal
legislation amending the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16
U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470ll (1979) \[hereinafter ARPA\] followed by a
discussion of how states and tribal governments can follow suit and how
federal agencies can be instrumental in building an intergovernmental
protection partnership. Finally, readers will be directed to ways of
enhancing preservation partnerships to join three essential entities:
(1) tribal governments, (2) museums, and (3) private property owners.

**Congressional Backdrop -**

**Public Laws 100-555 and 100-588**

Senate Bill (S.B.) 1985 \-- Senator Domenici\'s Bill (PL 100-555, signed
by former President Reagan on October 28, 1988) had its impetus in the
findings of the 1987 GAO Report about archaeological looting on federal
lands (see Cheek, Neumann this volume for further discussion of ARPA and
the 1988 amendments). In introducing the legislation, Senator Domenici
remarked:

Most of the archaeological surveys performed in recent years have been
conducted to obtain clearances for development projects \[or timber
sales\] and, therefore are not necessarily directed at those areas
having the greatest archaeological resource potential. S.B. 1985 would
strengthen the provisions of ARPA by directing BLM, the Park Service,
the Forest Service and other federal agencies to develop plans to survey
the lands under their control to determine the nature and extent of
archaeological resources on those lands (134 Cong. Rec.).

P.L. 100-555 also directs federal land managers to develop processes for
reporting suspected incidents of looting. Domenici said: \"Improved
documentation of looting activity would provide the land management
agencies with better data to use in deciding the amount of funds and
staff to request for \... the protection of sites and for the
apprehension and prosecution of looters.\" (134 Cong. Rec.)

The principal author worked with Representative Sam Gejdenson (D. Conn.)
on the House of Representatives\' amendments to ARPA. There was some
trepidation about tinkering with ARPA for fear that it would bring out
the pothunting lobby in droves, or that the political process would
result in a weakened version. The first fear really didn\'t materialize,
but the second did, in part.

After conducting a tour and field hearings in Cortez, Colorado,
Representative Gejdenson drafted amendments to ARPA with three
objectives:

1\. Clarify the definition of archaeological resource by eliminating the
\"laundry list\" and eliminating the phrase \"of archaeological
interest.\"

2\. Reduce the age limit of protected archaeological resources from 100
years to 50 years old. (Rep. Craig from Idaho was adamantly opposed to
this change.)

3\. Eliminate the \$5,000 felony threshold to provide instead the
Arizona model of misdemeanor penalties for surface collection and
felonies for digging (Comm. Print 1988).

The final legislation was House Bill (H.B.) 4068 (P.L. 100-588), signed
November 3, 1988 by the President. As a result of committee compromise,
ARPA has now been amended by:

1\. Adding an attempt provision (to reach those defendants who are
caught before they do any damage at a site, but have tools, etc. with
them). Unfortunately, Congress didn\'t define what constitutes an
attempt;

2\. Substituting \$500 for the \$5,000 felony cut-off which
[may]{.underline} make felonies easier to prove, but which doesn\'t
eliminate the problems with jurors disparaging archaeological damage
figures and with battles of the experts over definitions and
professional fees (Olson Rogers, 1985:110); and

3\. Requiring each federal land manager to \"establish a program to
increase public awareness of the significance of the archaeological
resources located on public lands and Indian lands and the need to
protect such resources,\" summarized in periodic reports to Congress.
This last addition is a step, but doesn\'t go far enough.

The primary legal attacks on ARPA have concerned the definition of
\"archaeological resource\" (Olson Rogers, 1987:70). A convicted
pothunter in Oregon recently appealed to the Ninth Circuit on vagueness
grounds, but the court upheld the guilty verdict. The issue is now
pending on a petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court
([United States v. Austin]{.underline}, No. 88‑3300 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Unfortunately, P.L. 100-588, as amended, does nothing to address ARPA\'s
definitional problems (which will continue to be raised across the
nation, regardless of the circuit court ruling in the
[Austin]{.underline} appeal).

As a matter of fact, as this article was being revised, the principal
author received an inquiry about a pothunting case in Grand Junction,
Colorado (in the Tenth Circuit). In March 1990, a United States
Magistrate there acquitted a defendant, caught with screen and shovel
digging in an archaeological site, citing concerns over ARPA\'s
definitions. The U.S. Attorney\'s office sought [de]{.underline}
[novo]{.underline} review in the U.S. District Court.

**Congressional Fallback**

Federal/state/tribal partnerships need to be built to develop model
state statutes and tribal ordinances which supplement federal laws and
to consider joint investigative efforts which could be prosecuted
through the state and tribal courts, if the federal courts are
unavailable (either because federal prosecutors decline ARPA cases or
because of unfavorable federal court rulings on ARPA). This is exactly
what the BLM did in the 1970\'s in Utah\'s Grand Gulch Primitive Area
(when the legality of the criminal provisions of the 1906 Antiquities
Act was in doubt), and it resulted in eleven convictions of pothunters
within a five-year period under the Utah state statute (Fike 1980).

Reliance on the state courts where there are inadequacies in federal
legislation is also what former Oregon State Supreme Court Justice Hans
Linde has advocated in speeches and opinions, echoing similar
suggestions by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan. When federal
constitutional protections were being eroded by a conservative U.S.
Supreme Court, Justice Brennan remarked: \"The diminution of federal
scrutiny and protection \... mandates the assumption of a more
responsible state court role\"(Brennan 1986:548).

Author Olson Rogers teaches an Archaeological Resources Protec­tion Law
seminar at Lewis and Clark\'s Northwestern School of Law and assigns law
students to draft model regional legislation. Fifty such models have
been prepared for various states, U.S. Terri­tories, Canadian provinces,
counties and tribal lands (on file at the law school). Many states have
undertaken similar revisions to outdated antiquities legislation,
sometimes prompted by these students\' inquiries.

**Model State/Tribal Legislation: Cultural Property Protection Act**

Thirteen prescribed provisions of this law reform effort follow in an
annotated outline:

**Section I: Introduction**

The preface to any legislation should set the tone by emphasizing that
the purpose of the Act is for pro­tec­tion and preservation (not
excavation and display). The introduction should be modeled after
Arkansas (Ark. Stat. Ann. 13-7-301 (1987)), Pennsylvania (Pa. Stat. Ann.
tit. 71, §§ 1047.1b(3), (6) (Purdon Supp. 1988)) and the Warm Springs
Tribal Ordinance (Code Chapter 490). It should also cite duties of state
officials to report and investigate violations (Domenici Bill) (Act of
Oct. 28, 1988, P.L. No. 100-555, 102 Stat. 2778); to prosecute (N.M.
Stat. Ann. § 18-6-9(D)); and, on the part of private citizens, to report
discoveries.

The state of Utah has one of the broadest provisions with respect to
reporting discoveries:

Any person who discovers any site or specimen on lands owned by the
state shall promptly report such discovery to the Division of State
History. It is the intention of the Legislature that discovery on
privately owned lands of sites or specimens should be immediately
reported to the Division of State History and that field investigation
should be discouraged except in accordance with this act.(Utah Code Ann.
§ 63-18-27 (1986)).

Ark. Stat. Ann.  13‑6‑3‑3(b) (1987) and N.C. Gen. Stat. 70-1 (1985)
contain similar language.

**Section II - Definition**

A model definition of cultural property would be based on information
and sacred values, not artifact-based, and would be geared to
[regional]{.underline} resources (hence the crucial role of
[state]{.underline} and [tribal]{.underline} authorities \-- ARPA was
originally drafted by Southwestern states\' advocates (Collins & Michel
1985:84), so its definition is slanted toward Southwest ruins and
pottery (16 U.S.C. § 470bb(1)). \"Resource\" should be broadly defined
as it was in the original Gejdenson bill (134 Cong. Rec. E486 (daily
ed., Mar. 2, 1988)); \"sacred object\" per the Oregon statute (Or. Rev.
Stat. §§ 358.905(6)(a)-(b) (1987)); \"contextual information\" per the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area interim guidelines (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
Final Interim Guidelines (Pacific Northwest Region 1987), at 9); age
limit set at fifty years to conform to most agency and tribal
regulations (36 C.F.R. §§ 1.4(a) and 261.2 (1988)) and to include most
Western historical sites. Tribal ordinances should be incorporated by
reference into other jurisdictions\' laws to include cultural vegetation
and other items of tribal identification. Human remains should
[not]{.underline} be included in the definition of \"resource,\" but
treated separately (Section IV, VII and X).

**Section III - Permitting**

A permitting program should make clear that the state or tribe possesses
the exclusive right to explore and excavate archaeological resources
located within the state or tribal lands (Ala. Code § 41-3-1 (1982)). A
system must be established for research following Dr. William Lipe\'s
\"conservation ethic.\" Permits should be issued only in keeping with
conservation and preservation goals. The goal of the conservation model
is \"to see that archaeological resources everywhere are identified,
protected and managed for maximum longevity\" (Lipe 1977:21), which in
the case of some, should be indefinitely.

A Board should be established to determine what research is absolutely
necessary. The Veterans\' Administration Human Subjects Research Review
(45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101-24 (1988)) provides an analogous forum (Ala. Code
§ 41-3-1 (1982). Indian representatives are essential (one for each
affected tribal government). Permitting fees would fund patrols, surveys
and public education at the state, county and tribal levels.

Clear title to any objects found should be vested in the state or tribal
government (no percentage to finder!) Unfortunately, a number of states
with underwater archaeological sites treat the resources as salvage
items and allow salvors to retain a portion of what they recover.
[See]{.underline}, [e.g.]{.underline}, La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§ 41.1605‑.1606 (West Supp. 1989) (percentage of cash value of objects
found); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-25 (1986) (portion of all relics may be
sold or retained by the licensee). Oregon (O.R.S. §§ 273.718
[et]{.underline} [seq.]{.underline}) allows people to obtain permits to
explore state lands for \"goods, money or treasure trove.\" If the state
chooses to place the property in a museum, it must compensate the finder
for the value of the goods up to \$5,000 and 50% of any value above that
amount. These types of statutes encourage exploitation of resources and
are contrary to the goal of conservation archaeology.

Finally, an ongoing supervision requirement is critical to the success
of this system, to allow the tribal or SHPO\'s agent access to the site
throughout the project (Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1989 and Utah Code
Ann. 63-18-25 (1986)). With respect to [private land]{.underline},
recording and removal conditions should be specified, providing for
condemnation in the case of noncompliance. Programs for funding private
preservation efforts should be initiated, and financed through fines and
permitting fees. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 253.400-407 (Supp. 1989) (Historic
Preservation Revolving Fund Act), N.Y. Parks & Rec. Law §§ 17.01‑.11
(McKinney 1984) (Outdoor Recreation Development Bond Act); Pa. Stat.
Ann. tit. 32, § 5001 (Purdon Supp. 1988) (Open Space Lands Act).

**Section IV - Criminal Conduct**

Prohibited behavior should include: \"[Entering]{.underline}
archaeological area with intent \...\" (Utah Code Ann. § 63-18-25
(1989)); [possession]{.underline} of illegal artifacts (Northey
1982:81); [trafficking]{.underline} without certification of origin (Or.
Rev. Stat. §§ 358.920(3)-(4) (1987)); [removal]{.underline} of cultural
property from the state. The state of Alabama has declared ownership of
all objects found on aboriginal mounds, earthworks, ancient or
historical forts and burial sites situated within the state and forbids
the sale or disposal of those objects outside of the state, unless they
are exchanged for other objects from other states\' museums, libraries
or individuals (Ala. Code § 41‑3-5 (1975)).

All \"garden variety\" applicable criminal statutes (e.g. theft,
trespass, vandalism, etc.) should be incorporated in this provision
(Olson Rogers 1987:81-86). [Human remains]{.underline} should be
addressed in a separate section with increased penalties. For instance,
Washington law provides that the knowing removal, mutilation or
destruction of historic graves is a felony and in the event of
inadvertent disturbance, the remains must be reinterred. In addition to
criminal prosecution, Indian tribes or members are given a civil action
for equitable relief or damages against those who have disturbed grave
sites. A successful plaintiff may recover attorney fees and punitive
damages under this provision (Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1989).

**Section V - Penalties**

Misdemeanor = (maximum one year imprisonment or a \$100,000 fine or
both) for [surface]{.underline} collection (if value of stolen object is
less than \$100). [Felony]{.underline} = (five years, \$250,000 fine or
both) for surface collection of artifacts worth more than \$100 and [for
all excavation]{.underline} (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3702.01 (Supp.
1988)).

**Section VI - Forfeiture**

State drafters should follow the ARPA model allowing forfeiture in
conjunction with or apart from any criminal or civil cases (16 U.S.C. §
470gg(b)(3)), plus [mandate]{.underline} forfeiture of illegal artifacts
in defendants\' possession (Northey 1982:88) (Idaho Code § 67‑4122
(1980); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 74‑5408 (1985); Or. Rev. Stat. § 273.711
(1987)). Forfeiture should also be allowed for items purchased with
[proceeds]{.underline} of illegal trafficking activities, similar to
many criminal narcotics trafficking statutes.

**Section VII - Civil Penalties**

ARPA regulations are generally adequate, as long as they are enhanced by
provisions for [treble]{.underline} [damages]{.underline} (Idaho Code §
67‑4118 (1980)). With respect to burial violations, a separate right of
action should be provided for tribes or enrolled members allowing tribal
court jurisdiction (Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1989, § 3).

**Section VIII - Private Right of Action**

Civil enforcement should not be reliant on the state Attorney General\'s
Office to pursue. Individuals, tribal governments or public interest
organizations should have available: damages (actual, punitive, plus
emotional distress); declaratory and injunctive relief; and provisions
for successful plaintiffs to recover attorneys\' fees (Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 358.955) (Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1989).

**Section IX - Rewards**

ARPA\'s system is an acceptable model, except the maximum reward should
be increased to \$5,000. ARPA allows a reward to any person who
furnishes information which leads to the finding of a civil violation,
or the conviction of a criminal violation and for which a fine was paid.
If several persons provide information, the money is divided among them.
A government employee acting in the scope of employment is not entitled
to claim a reward.

The maximum reward under ARPA is \$500. Originally, ARPA called for
\$1,000 reward, but \"several members of Congress feared the higher
figure might encourage vigilante type activity or more likely frivolous
allegations\" (Collins 1980:7-8). These fears have proven to be
unfounded. In the first eight years of ARPA\'s operation, only two cases
of penalty awards to private citizens were reported (letter from William
Penn Mott, Jr., Director of the National Park Service to Senator Pete
Domenici (Mar. 13, 1987).

**Section X: Tribal Rights**

A model statute [must]{.underline}: require notification to tribal
authorities regarding recovered sacred objects (Or. Rev. Stat. § 358.945
(1987)); mandate forfeiture of items to identifiable tribes or
descendants (16 U.S.C. § 170gg(c) (1982)); ensure tribal access to sites
(42 U.S.C. § 1996 (1982)); contain a conflict resolution process such as
that called for in Charles Wilkinson\'s exemplary \"Ethic of Place\"
(Wilkinson 1988:401); specify disposition of remains (immediately return
to identifiable tribe or descendant except when temporarily needed for
prosecution or for critical scientific investigation as determined by
the representative permitting board).

In 1976, Iowa passed a law providing for reburial of disinterred Native
American remains. As one commentator has noted, the law was the product
of a cooperative effort between archaeologists and Indians to resolve
the conflict between them and face the problems created by construction
projects and looting, their common enemies (Anderson, 1985: 48). The
cooperation between the archaeologists and Indians of Iowa has continued
through a series of conferences and other educational programs. Anderson
suggests that archaeologists work on a regional or state level with the
appropriate tribal officials to develop procedures that are tailored to
the problems which exist in the area (Anderson: 51).

**Section XI - Incentives to Private Landowners**

There are numerous tax incentive schemes to draw upon for protection of
cultural resources on private land (Alaska Stat. § 29.45.050(b)(2)(B)
(1988) (municipality may by ordinance classify and exempt from taxation
historic sites, building and monuments); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 7-2-18.2
(1988) (tax credit for one-half of the cost of restoration,
rehabilitation or preservation of a cultural property up to a maximum of
\$25,000)). A land exchange program such as that provided by Washington
statute should be expanded to specifically include archaeological
resource sites (Wash. Rev. Code § 79.08.109 (Supp. 1989)). Protective
measures can also be required as parts of state land use plans, such as
Oregon\'s Land Conservation and Development Commission\'s Goal Five
(Oregon Land Conservation & Devel. Comm\'n, Dep\'t of Land Conservation,
Oregon\'s Statewide Planning Goals 5 (1985) (programs shall be provided
that will protect scenic and historic areas and natural resources for
future generations); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40:55D-28(b)(6) (West Supp. 1988)
(master plan, where appropriate, should include information on historic
sites and their relation to surrounding areas in keeping with
site-specific secrecy requirements outlined in next Section).

Eminent domain is a more drastic possibility (Alaska Stat.
§ 41.35.060(b) (1988)). New Mexico provides for an emergency
classification of private land whereby a site can be temporarily placed
on a register pending further investigation (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 18-6-12
(1978)). An owner may receive a fair rental value for land to the extent
the classification affects the normal use of the property. Historical
district designation must be facilitated (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 6E-2
(1984)). Mining activities must be curtailed. Miss. Code Ann. § 53-7-51
(Supp. 1988) gives anyone the right to petition the state to declare an
area unsuitable for mining that might damage the area\'s archaeological
value. The Supreme Court of Indiana has recently held that the state\'s
designation of an archaeological site on privately owned land as
unsuitable for surface coal mining did not amount to an unconstitutional
taking ([Dept. of Natural Resources v. Indiana Coal Council,
Inc.]{.underline}, 542 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind. 1989).

In addition, political pressure can be a form of powerful persuasion and
can lead to negotiated deals between governments and private landowners
to prevent the destruction of valuable sites. For example, Hawaii\'s
Governor Waihee was able to convince a land developer to cancel plans to
develop a hotel on an ancient burial site and to rebury the remains in
return for the state\'s promise to purchase the land (USA Today, Apr.
20, 1989)

**Section XII - Exemption from State Freedom of Information Acts**

No site-specific information should be available to the public. Sales of
public land with known sites should be prohibited (Ark. Stat. Ann.
§ 13-6-305 (1988) (the Commissioner of State Lands, upon written notice
given by the Arkansas Archaeological Society, shall reserve from sale
any state lands on which sites or artifacts are located or may be
found); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, § 765 (1988) (when transferring real
property that contains archaeological resources, the state, upon
recommendation of the state archaeologist, may condition the transfer in
such a way as will protect the resources)). A right of first refusal
could also be granted to the SHPO or an archaeological conservancy.

**Section XIII - Public Education**

Overall objectives for any state cultural resource program include:
appropriating fifty percent of \"state ARPA\" fines to fund designated
public education programs; devoting one-fifth of SHPO\'s job description
(i.e., one day a week) to public education activities (Olson Rogers
1986:13, also see Chapter 4 this volume for additional discussion of
archaeology and education); requiring para­professional components in all
state-funded research projects.

**Public Education Platform \-- Thirteen Planks**

All archaeophiles conducting public education programs should begin with
the Airlie House Report (see McGimsey this volume). In 1974, with the
help of the National Park Service, Dr. McGimsey organized several Airlie
House seminars. One, in particular, focused on public education. In the
Airlie House Report, Chapter Four is entitled \"The Crisis in
Communication\" and deals with getting the archaeophiles\' message out
to the general public (McGimsey 1977:78). Its recommendations are:

1\. Teach public relations methods to archaeology graduate students.

2\. Give professional recognition to public relations as a worthwhile
endeavor (not just to \"scholarly journals\"). Give credit for pieces in
popular magazines.

3\. [Talk]{.underline} to pothunters.

\"\[t\]here will always be certain individuals, generally labelled
\'pothunters\' who are either unconcerned or simply unaware of the
damage they are doing to the resource base. It is important to the
profession that communication is maintained with these individuals. In
individual instances it may be impossible to convince them to adhere, to
whatever degree, to proper scientific methodology. It certainly is
impossible if you do not talk to them at all. Even those individuals
that show no prospect of being converted can be helpful in giving
information on what they find, which again would be a total
impossibility if they had been alienated because of the attitude of the
professional. Destruction of sites or materials by pothunters should not
be supported or condoned in any way, but it should be possible to remain
in communication with such individuals without doing either. At least
the attempt should be made\" (McGimsey 1977:84).

4\. Adopt a logo for public recognition.

5\. In dealing with the media and laypersons, [always]{.underline} ask
yourself the following seven questions:

\"\'Am I sufficiently stressing the need for preservation of
archeological resources?\' (Avoid creating the impression that
archaeological sites are there to be exploited by archaeologists or
anyone else)\" (McGimsey 1977:85) - Since Dr. Lipe\'s seminal article in
1974, archaeologists have generally internalized his plea to save study
subjects for future scientists, rather than rummage through them all in
a fit of professional fervor.

\"\'Am I fully recognizing the humanistic appeal of archaeology?\'
(Avoid portrayal of archaeology as a dry-as-dust activity)\" (McGimsey
1977:86). In the successful [Cortiana]{.underline} prosecution in
Arizona, the expert witness, Dr. Adovasio, personalized the main exhibit
(a mummified Anasazi infant) by referring to her as \"this little
girl,\" clearly conveying to the jury that this was someone\'s
[child]{.underline}, not a collectible curio (American Anthropological
Association Newsletter, 1988).

\"\'Am I fully presenting the [scientific]{.underline} nature of
archaeology?\' (Avoid looking like a treasure hunter \-- forget objects,
talk [information]{.underline}.)\" Professional topics for lay
audiences, should communicate [concepts]{.underline}, not frame
artifacts as \"objets d\'arts.\"

\"\'Am I pointing out the pertinence of my work to the modern world?\"\'
(Present the social-scientific basis for your research).\" In [U.S. v.
Jaques]{.underline}, an Oregon pothunting prosecution, Dr. C. Melvin
Aikens, the government\'s expert witness, described for the jury how
soil and pollen research from the vandalized site could provide data
useful to local farmers and agricultural researchers with respect to
grazing patterns and crop rotation (United States v. Jaques, No.
83-129FR (D. Or. 1983), [aff\'d]{.underline}, 753 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir.
1984), [cert.]{.underline} [denied]{.underline}, 470 U.S. 1087 (1985)).

\"\'Am I representing archaeological considerations in a manner
compatible with the law and with good cultural resource management
concepts? (Consider that next year you or some other archaeologist may
want the local legal authority to pass a law protecting sites. Lay the
groundwork for that understanding and support.)\" Probably the finest
example of this kind of foresight can be found in Dr. McGimsey\'s own
pioneering work in Arkansas (McGimsey 1972).

\"\'Am I presenting the [interconnected]{.underline} nature of
archaeology with other disciplines?\" Most local newspapers have a
science section which seeks contributions from community residents. Rob
Freed, former archaeologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Portland District), has been a regular correspondent with [The
Oregonian]{.underline} concerning such subjects as dovetailing
geological and archaeological research theories in the Columbia River
Gorge (Freed 1988).

\"\'Am I making clear the limitations on archaeology and
archaeologists?\' (Don\'t create unreasonable expectations. Avoid
letting people think that if they find a site and report it, somebody
will appear from the big university in the sky, pat them on the head,
and excavate everything for free.)\" In [U.S. v. Barnes]{.underline},
another early Oregon prosecution, an unfortunate example of apparent
failure to heed this warning may be found. A defense witness testified
as follows:

Q. Did you ever send any of your \[artifacts\] \... to Oregon State
University, to Dr. Cole?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you ever show Dr. Cole the site?

A. Yes, I did. I took him to the site. It was the first time that the
University had knowledge of the site.

Q. Well, did he express an interest in excavating the site?

A. \... I urged him to do so, and he [definitely]{.underline} said that
if they were funded \...\" (Trans. p.585) ([United States v.
Bender]{.underline}, No. 81-119BE (D. Or. 1981)).

\[Later testifying about a prehistoric rabbit snare from the site which
the same witness had sent up to the University for examination.\]

Q. \[Mr. Cole\] kept the basket and its contents for approximately two
years, and refused to acknowledge my letters requesting him to share
what knowledge he had learned from the study of the material. I stopped
at the University while I was in Corvallis and asked him if he had
written a pamphlet on the basket as he had promised. He said no, he had
written nothing and didn\'t even know where the basket was. He
eventually found it buried under a heavy stack of old newspapers,
somewhat crushed and deteriorated in comparison to its condition when he
borrowed it. I was disappointed with both the treatment to myself and
the loaned material \...

Is that statement true?

A. That statement is true.

(Trans. pp.602-03) ([United States v. Bender]{.underline}, No. 81-119 BE
(D. Or. 1981)).

Given those seven questions as a constant backdrop, thirteen strategies
for public education have emerged. To be most effective, all should be
offered simultaneously as part of an integrated program.

***1. Native American Political Participation***

Nothing brings the protection message home in a more heartfelt way to
the public than tribal outrage over desecration of sacred sites. Nez
Perce leaders concerned with the [Kelly]{.underline} prosecution in
Idaho rented buses to attend proceedings and maintained a \"victims\'
court watch\" (Loftus 1986). Allen Slickpoo, a Nez Perce elder, made the
point vehemently by saying: \"These are [my]{.underline} relatives whose
skulls you\'re selling\" (see Anyon this volume for further discussion
of Native American concerns).

Hopis were able to make their presence felt at Mesa Verde in raising
objections over the disturbance of sacred lands. As reported in the
Rocky Mountain News in August 1988, \"Lucas Films \... bowing to the
concerns of the Hopi \... canceled plans to film part of an Indiana
Jones adventure movie at Mesa Verde National Park\"(Rocky Mountain News,
Apr. 24, 1988).

An Executive Producer was quoted as saying \"We discovered that this was
holy ground to the Hopi Indians\.... We feel we have to respect their
heritage \...\" The Hopi elders\' objections were raised by actor Jon
Voigt and by Jack Smith, National Park Service archaeologist. The
producer noted, \"The thing that put us over the top on this was to
discover how upset the Indians would be, and certainly we didn\'t want
to cause any kind of disrespect or problem there \...\"

The Hopi Cultural Preservation Officer was writing a letter of objection
to the Park Service when LucasFilm withdrew. He expressed relief, saying
\"\... These \[ruins\] have become a complex shrine system for us. Mesa
Verde was the home of the Flute Clan.\"

Another avenue for Native American activists to explore is the use of
hex mythology. Virtually every culture has its version: the Egyptian
mummy curse (Larson 1986); the AKU AKU warning on Easter Island
(Heyerdahl 1958); misfortune spells surrounding the Viking rune stones
(Dixon 1963); the chilling coincidences(?) that befell pocketers of
potshards at Chaco Canyon as noted on the NPS tourist information center
bulletin board. The point is that many pothunters are superstitious and
therefore a receptive audience to the rumor that contact with illegal
artifacts is not good for one\'s health.

There is nothing to prevent Native Americans from taking advantage of
publicizing these cultural taboos. And there is every reason to
cultivate Hollywood stars willing to assist in this endeavor.
Exploitation of cult heroes is fair in this campaign.

***2. Elementary and Secondary School Programs***

The \"Young Igors\" of the world have to be set straight. Oregon
archaeologists salt sandbox stratigraphy with representative artifacts
to give grade school amateurs an opportunity to participate in a
professionally supervised \"dig\" (Wilson 1985). The Head Start Program
on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon has an elder-devised
curriculum promoting cultural pride in pre-schoolers. Provincial
leadership in Alberta, Canada provides an anti-pothunting unit for
fourth graders (Knudson 1989:106). For additional information on school
programs see Lerner, Rogge, Smartz, McNutt, and Hawkins this volume.

***3. Private Landowners Outreach***

There are many vehicles for converting citizens who are happenstance
custodians of cultural resources. The most direct approach is taken by
organizations such as the Archaeological Conservancy and the Trust for
Public Lands which negotiate for preservation easements or outright
purchase (Ford 1983:221, also see Michel this volume). Conversion is
also accomplished through proselytizing in popular magazines such as
[Archaeology]{.underline} (Herscher 1989:67). Praise and other positive
reinforcement for enlightened private action to preserve sites also win
support. A model program in Kentucky, the Kentucky Archaeology Registry
(KAR), has adopted this approach with great success. Its Executive
Summary contains this description:

KAR provides cost-effective site protection to significant
archaeological sites by educating landowners about their site\'s
significance, involving them in site stewardship and providing
management assistance and advice on stronger protection options.
Recognition of the land­owners\' commitment takes the form of
personalized awards.

Landowner contact/site registration can be useful site protection
strategy in and of itself, or it can be used as the first step in a
multi­faceted site protection program. That includes the use of recorded
land-use agreements, public education, grass roots support, enforcement
of existing antiquities laws and active site management (Henderson
1988).

***4. Museum Exhibits, Presentations, etc***

There [are]{.underline} some museums which are not wholly preoccupied
with scoring \"coups\" in the illegal marketplace. To cite some positive
examples of museum contributions to the cultural resource protection
message: (1) the National Geographic Society\'s \"Stolen Treasures\"
exhibit interpreting the confisca­tion of Peruvian burial goods from a
convicted New York art dealer (Lewis 1982); (2) the Washington
Archaeological Resource Center\'s travelling show with an integrated
team of local, tribal and professional consultants assembling the
information packet which accompanies the display; and (3) the Oregon Art
Institute\'s North­west Native American Art Council, which sponsored a
panel on pothunting featuring an archaeologist, an attorney and a
repre­sen­tative of the tribal governments in the state. This is the
direction in which museum management of the 1990\'s should be headed
(see Brose this volume).

Superb examples of this form of public education may be found in the
tribal cultural centers on Western reservations. The Makah Cultural
Center in Neah Bay tells the story of the excavation of the Ozette site
on the Washington coast. The Gila River Indian Cultural Center just
south of Phoenix abuts and interprets the site of the great Hohokam
excavation at Salt River. None of these \"objectify\" artifacts by
showcasing aesthetic values.

***5. Site Stewardship and Signage***

The Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Dr. Shereen
Lerner, has instituted an aggressive site steward program which has
received national attention (Destruction of Archaeological Heritage
1988:53, also see Hoffman this volume). Sites with citizen watchdogs
have advocates when they are violated. It is far more impressive to have
hiking enthusiasts as witnesses (who had the presence of mind to
photograph pothunters in trenches), than to parade a string of
government law enforcement agents in court (Clayton 1982).

Creative signage can also impact captive audiences (see Jameson and
Kodack this volume). A roadside sign in Alaska takes advantage of a
prime whale watching spot to tell the story of missing pieces in an
archaeological puzzle. A river rafting launch site posting heightens
recreationists\' sensitivity to archaeological areas downstream. The use
of signs like these, physically [removed]{.underline} from attractive
resources, can educate without inviting invasion.

***6. Participatory Archaeology***

Fortunately, there are now many fine examples of programs which entail
supervising amateurs involved in archaeological fieldwork (see Davis
this volume). Peter Pilles, archaeologist on the Coconino National
Forest in Arizona has received national recognition for his summer work
with volunteers of all ages in the Flagstaff area (Dagget 1989:12). Dr.
William Lipe spends his summers with amateurs at Crow Canyon. Earthwatch
provides international opportunities.

Paraprofessional training can backfire. Care must be taken to provide an
acceptable (and exhausting!) outlet to those with pothunting tendencies,
reinforced by unremitting propaganda about the information potential of
legitimate fieldwork. Archaeophiles cannot afford to provide training
and \"inside\" information to those who will use it to promote their own
treasure-hunts. State and tribal governments might begin with a
paraprofessional training and certification program such as that
provided by New Hampshire law (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 227-C:10 (Supp.
1988)).

***7. State Commission***

As with so many public relations offensives for archaeology, Arizona has
taken the lead in using its state\'s [political]{.underline} resources
to cultivate a constituency for its [cultural]{.underline} resources.
When Bruce Babbitt was Governor, the first state archaeological
protection commission was formed and the first Archaeology Awareness
Week proclaimed (Proclamation, Arizona Archaeology Week, Office of the
Governor, State of Arizona (signed by Gov. Babbit on Jan. 18, 1983). See
Lerner (this volume) for additional information on Arizona Archaeology
Week. Oregon has followed with a proclamation under Governor Goldschmidt
and with conferences and legislation sponsored by the State Commission
on Indian Services. Washington has adopted Arizona\'s \"Thieves of
Time\" poster theme for its own campaign, substituting a Northwest
carving for the Southwest pottery in the original design.

It is most appropriate as states undertake revisions of their cultural
resource laws that official commissions be established in conjunction
with such efforts. It is these commissions which can coordinate all the
public education planks advocated in this article.

***8. Amateur Archaeological Groups***

Almost every state has a club of would-be archaeologists. In the last
few decades, these organizations have struggled to make the difficult
transition from a loose-knit hobbyists\' and collectors\'
\"kaffeklatch\" to a serious supplement to professional archaeological
groups (see Davis this volume). Two which have largely succeeded in this
evolution are the Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society (MCAS), under the
leadership of the late Nick Paglieri and the Oregon Archaeological
Society (OAS).

The MCAS regularly exhorts its members to get involved in protection
efforts and has been very industrious in \"watchdogging\" federal and
state agencies ([see]{.underline}, [e.g.]{.underline}, [Cultural
Heritage Threatened]{.underline}, Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society
Bulletin, Jan. 1989) advising readers to write to Congress to protest
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\' decision to reduce cultural resource
staff in Portland, Oregon District. The OAS, through its newsletter
\"Screenings\" has recently reminded its membership that:

We also believe that by protecting sites from indiscriminate digging, we
can conserve many of these vanishing pages of history for future
generations, whose scientific technique may be vastly superior to
ours\.... The artifact in itself should not be the primary objective,
but rather the knowledge attained with its recovery.

\* \* \*

Indiscriminate digging and vandalism by the few negate the efforts of
the many\....

\* \* \*

All violators will be dropped from membership rolls and, if the incident
warrants, will be reported to the proper authorities\....

\* \* \*

Remember, once a site has been destroyed, it can NEVER be repaired.
([President\'s Comments]{.underline}, Screenings, Oct. 1, 1987, p.1.)

As news of this enlightenment spreads, professionals are gradually
becoming more attuned to working with amateurs (rather than scornfully
keeping them at bay). One positive example, again in Oregon, involved
the close working relationship between the local discoverer of a
Clovis-like point in Eastern Oregon and an archaeologist (and lithics
expert) from the Corps of Engineers (Dreyfuss 1986:5). The professionals
who excavated the site ended up naming it after the amateur who had
called it to their attention. For an opposite point of view on the
success of this endeavor and an indication of the attitudes (on both
sides) which will need to be overcome, readers should skim the June 1989
issue of [Indian Artifact Magazine]{.underline}.

***9. Professional Archaeological Societies***

The Society for American Archaeology has been traditionally open to
public membership and regularly sponsors public confer­ences. It also
holds workshops training professionals in public education programming.
The Society has recently initiated a special project \"Saving the Past
for the Future\" to assemble inter­disciplinary \"think tanks\" which
will concentrate on devel­op­ing new approaches to promote public efforts
for resource protection (Neumann 1989; also see Reinburg, Judge this
volume).

***10. PSAs, TV Documentaries, etc***

Media communication which has the greatest impact comes in dramatic
30-second \"spots\" produced free for \"public service announcements.\"
Various states and tribal governments have been experimenting with a
version of the environmental message borne by the profile of an Indian
on horseback by a polluted stream showing a tear rolling down his cheek.
The archaeophiles\' edition portrays an Indian father and son entering a
Protestant pioneer cemetery, carrying a pick and shovel, excitedly
discus­sing what \"treasures\" they can find buried among the graves.

Other longer television productions include successful documentaries
such as Arizona\'s \"Thieves of Time\" and Oregon Public Broadcasting
station\'s \"Time Bandits.\" Hollywood actors and national political
figures can also be drafted for cameo appearances and radio spots.
Another successful video is \"Assault on Time\" produced by the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, in cooperation with several Federal
agencies, For this approach to reach its potential, it must be cast and
directed as an aggressive public relations campaign.

***11. Law Enforcement Press Releases***

Closely related \-- indeed, another component of the public relations
offensive \-- is the issuance of press releases report­ing law
enforcement activities. One of the objectives of a criminal prosecution
is deterrence; yet federal land managers are often reluctant to trumpet
indictments and convictions of their \"customers.\" Not only must this
reticence be overcome, but managers should go one step farther and also
publicize \"preven­tive\" law enforcement measures such as monitoring and
electronic surveillance of sites ([see]{.underline}, [e.g.]{.underline},
United States Corps of Engineers News Release No. PA 89-90, June 13,
1989 (describing how increased surveillance of sites along the Columbia
River resulted in the arrests of two men for illegal digging)). See Des
Jean this volume for discussion of a monitoring program at a National
Park in Tennessee/Kentucky.

A note of caution, however \-- it is imperative that public information
officers work [with]{.underline} law enforcement officers in
co-authoring press releases of this nature. Ongoing investigations can
be seriously compromised or undercover operatives endangered by
unguarded communications with media representatives.

***12. Fact-Finding/Propaganda Trips for Policy Makers***

Some public education needs to be [targeted]{.underline} at public
officials. Greater levels of awareness can be almost instantly achieved
by such attention-getting ventures as: hosting a member of the court at
an archaeological field station on a wildlife refuge; taking prosecutors
on river trips to vandalized areas; organizing \"field trips\" for FBI
agents in conjunction with training sessions; urging land managers to
accompany elders to looted burial sites and to attend a reinterrment
ceremony; busing Advisory Councils to the scenes of archaeological
crimes to observe first-hand bulldozer blade gouges in ancient kiva
walls and skeletal material eroding from the shoulders of newly
constructed logging access roads. Media representatives may be invited
along on any or all of these excursions.

***13. Operation SAVE Prototype***

The Bureau of Land Management recognized that the best way to protect
archaeological research was through a multifaceted approach and
instituted Operation SAVE (Save Archaeological Values for Everyone) in
1987 (see Schalk this volume). The program\'s three areas of emphases
are public education, interagency employee training and law enforcement.
The BLM\'s efforts to increase awareness of the importance of cultural
resources include distribution of posters printed with a toll-free
number for citizens to call to report archaeological crimes. Stickers
featuring the same Wishram Indian rock art design as the posters are
distributed to school children. The toll-free number has prompted
numerous calls.

In its first year of operation, SAVE sponsored training programs for
over 400 governmental employees including both managerial and field
staff. Through Operation SAVE, the BLM assists federal and state
agencies to investigate violations and increase enforcement of laws
protecting archaeological sites. The BLM also conducted an aerial
surveillance program which led to the detection of fourteen
archaeological violations and recovery of seventy artifacts. Future
goals of Operation SAVE include strengthening ties to local communities,
increasing patrols on public lands and developing a monitoring program
for vulnerable sites (BLM, Annual Report, 1989 \-- for a detailed
description of S.A.V.E., see Schalk this volume). The Operation SAVE
logo \"Tsagaglalal\" has been adopted for the Society for American
Archaeology \"Save the Past for the Future\" project.

**Co-Venturing**

At the Third Annual Northwest Tribal Cultural Resource Protection
Conference in Silverdale, Washington, the Executive Director of the
National Advisory Council on Historic Preserva­tion together with the
primary author of this article found themselves cast in a \"bit part\"
mediating role much like the cook in Moliere\'s \"The Miser\" (G.
Gravely trans. 1956:205-207). However, a reconciliation between Indians
and archaeologists proved to be a much tougher challenge than that
involving an estranged father and son competing for the same woman! That
shouldn\'t be the case.

Cultural resources are mute. Not that they don\'t have much to convey to
those who take the time to listen, to observe, and to learn or to those
whose ancestors or heritage they contain. But when their integrity is
violated, they cannot testify for themselves.

The 1980\'s has witnessed the effectiveness of the victims\' rights
movement, as \"reform\" legislation swept 47 states and the federal
government. The combined political clout of victims and their friends
and relatives has resulted in increasing resources for investigation,
more arrests of offenders, greater acceptance of evidence at trials
about the impacts of crimes and enhanced penalties at sentencing. When
cultural resources are victims of pothunters, private developers or
governmental project depredations, they likewise need voices to protest
their plight.

Frequently in the courtroom, cultural resources are disem­bodied,
objectified. To speak of cultural resources \"victims\" as dehydrated
remains, as items of scientific curiosity, serves to further degrade
them. To allow them to go advocateless is to permit their continuing
victimization.

That is why Adovasio\'s description of the mummified infant in the
[Cortiana]{.underline} case as \"this little Anasazi girl\" is so
compelling. The jury at this trial was less able to disregard the
invasion of this human being, because she became more than a \"site\" or
abstract artifact in the jurors\' minds.

That\'s also why the [Kelly]{.underline} case resulted in the serious
penalties imposed (including costs of reburial) \-- because Nez Perce
elders rented a bus and appeared at court hearings, held press
conferences, and carried picket signs saying \"We don\'t dig Kelly!\"
and bore witness in the back of the courtroom whenever the case appeared
on the docket.

Instead of bogging down in internal squabbles over past slights, why
can\'t the preservation forces [join]{.underline} forces? Why has there
been no coalition of archaeologists and tribal leaders to go on the
public relations offensive in these cases? It is time for the \"thieves
of time\" message to be proclaimed by a chorus of [blended]{.underline}
voices at every opportunity: in the press, in the courtroom, in the
legislature and in the public arena wherever cultural resources are
threatened.

It is time to expand the partnership. Tribal governments are essential
to this enterprise. They have never been allocated adequate funding to
be meaningful players in the protection of their own heritage.

For instance, when the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act was
passed, Oregon county governments received monies from the state
legislature for planning purposes. The four affected tribal governments
named in the legislation received nothing, until the Gorge Commission
applied to Congress for a small appropriation under the tribal
government Self-Determina­tion Act (25 U.S.C. § 450(h); (Letter from
Stafford Hansell, Chair, Columbia River Gorge Commission, to Rep. Sidney
Yates, Feb. 22, 1988). This underfunding is unfair and shortsighted,
because Gorge protection cannot be achieved without tribal
participation.

The National Historic Preservation Act contains a heretofore unused
provision which is of particular interest in this regard. Title 16
U.S.C. § 470-1(d)(3)(B) empowers the Secretary of the Interior (in
consultation with the SHPO) to \"make grants or loans \... to Indian
tribes \... for the preservation of their cultural heritage.\" It would
be a productive step to begin this partnership if representatives of the
Department of the Interior would urge SHPOs to work with tribes to apply
for such grants.

The second prong of this partnership has got to be museums. Museums have
unfortunately often taken an adversarial role vis-a-vis preservationists
and Indian tribes, for instance by lobbying against the UNESCO cultural
property convention or by proposing legislation to have museums exempted
from the National Stolen Property Act (Meyer, 1973:284; Letter from
Asst. Attorney Gen. Patricia Wald to Hon. Charles A. Vanik, Subcomm. on
Trade, Comm. on Ways and Means (July 26, 1977); Moore, 1988:466). But
new curators and directors like Ellen Herscher are starting to push for
cooperation with tribes on repatriation issues and for tighter
acquisition policies (Herscher 1989:70). Governmental agencies could
play a major role in supporting this \"new wave\" of museum management,
and in offering joint ventures in assembling traveling exhibits or
interpretive programs.

The third partnership category is another obvious one ‑- private
property owners. It will be impossible to achieve consistent cultural
resource management if it only applies on public lands. The Kentucky
model mentioned earlier is one worth emulating. Working through SHPOs,
federal agencies could enter into agreements with their private citizen
neighbors to preserve sites jointly held. Contributing its expertise,
the federal agency could foster private site steward programs, offer
\"Take Pride in America\" awards to citizens who do the most for
cultural resources, etc.

There are [lots]{.underline} of opportunities to nurture this
relationship if private outreach becomes a priority. After all, the
Kentucky program is funded, in part, by the National Park Service. That
agency is a natural to take the lead in forming these kinds of
partnerships, and the mandate from Congress is in Representative Sam
Gejdenson\'s legislation.

According to Ruthann Knudson: \"We need to develop an overall
archaeological research \[and preservation\] plan for the whole
continent. To do it will take scientific and political skills as well as
courage and chutzpah\" (Knudson 1989:73). Moreover, the proposed
partners must envision sinking or swimming [together]{.underline}.
Otherwise the archaeophiles\' audience will lack confidence in the
ability of these co-venturers to go the distance.

**References Cited**

Adovasio, J. M. (1988) Potholder found Guilty in Jury Trial In [American
Anthropological Association Newsletter]{.underline}, Vol. 29, No. 1, p.
28, Col. 1.

Anderson, D., (1985) Reburial: Is It Reasonable?
[Archaeology]{.underline} (Sept./Oct.) pp. 49ff.

Brennan, W. (1986) The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of
State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights. [New York
University Law Review]{.underline}, Vol. 61, pp. 535, 548.

Clayton, R. (1982) 3 Fined for Indian Burial Ground Violation. U.S.
Forest Service Pacific Northwest/Southwest Log.

Collins & Michel (1985) Preserving the Past: Origins of the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. [American
Archaeology]{.underline}. Vol. 5, p. 84.

Collins, R. (1980) The Meaning Behind ARPA: How the Act is Meant to
Work. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, S.W. Region, pp.
7-8.

Dagget, D. (1989) Rocks of Ages. [Arizona Highways]{.underline} (April),
p. 12.

Dixon, F. (1963) The Hardy Boys: The Viking Symbol Mystery.

Dreyfuss, C. (1986) Legacy of a Vanished People, [The
Oregonian]{.underline} (June 1) Northwest Magazine, p. 5.

Fike, R. (1980) Antiquities Violations in Utah: Justice Does Prevail.
[Cultural Resources Law Enforcement: An Emerging Science]{.underline},
49 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Region 3.

Ford, R. (1983) The Archaeological Conservancy, Inc.: The Goal is
Preservation. [American Archaeology]{.underline}, 3:221-24.

Freed, R. (1988) Major Landslide 900 Years Ago Shaped Life in Columbia
Gorge. [The Oregonian]{.underline} (February 25), D3:Column. 1.

Geranios R. (1988) Indian Sites, Relics Intact at Hanford. [The
Oregonian]{.underline} (August 26) C7:Column. 1.

Grimes, W. (1989) Antiquites Boom \-- Who Pays the Price? [New York
Times]{.underline} (July 16, 1989), Magazine 6:3.

Harden, H. (1989) Who Owns Our Past? [National Geographic]{.underline}
(March) 376.

Henderson, L. (1988) The Kentucky Archaeological Registry: Citizen-based
Preservation for Kentucky\'s Archaeological Sites. Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission.

Herscher, E. (1989) A Future in Ruins. [Archaeology]{.underline}
(Jan./Feb.) p. 67.

Heyerdahl, T. (1958) Aku-Aku. Rand McNally.

Knudson, R. (1989) North America\'s Threatened Heritage.
[Archaeology]{.underline} (Jan./Feb.) pp. 71, 106.

Larson, G. (1986) The Far Side, the Oregonian, Mar. 17 (pp. 13)

Lewis, C. (1982) Peru\'s Lost Worlds. [Washington Post]{.underline}
(August 5) D1, Column. 1.

Lipe, W. (1977) A Conservation Model for American Archaeology.
[Conservation Archaeology]{.underline} (Schiffer & Gumerman) p. 21.

Loftus, B. (1986) Grave Robbers Sentencing Delay Angers Nez Perces.
[Lewiston Tribune]{.underline} (April 8) A7:Column. 1.

McGimsey, C. (1972) [Public Archaeology]{.underline}. Seminar Press.

\-\-\-- (1977) Society for American Archaeology, The Management of
Archaeological Resources: The Airlie House Report.

Meyer, K. (1973) The Plundered Past. Atheneum Press, p. 284.

Moliere, A. (1956) The Miser in Six Prose Comedies of Moliere (G.
Gravely translation) pp. 205-207.

Moore, J. (1988 Enforcing Foreign Ownership Claims in the Antiquities
Market. [Yale Law Journal]{.underline}, Vol. 96, p. 466.

Neumann, L. (1989) Saving the Past for the Future, SAA Embarks on
Project to Prevent Looting. [Bulletin of the Society for American
Archaeology]{.underline} (January), p. 1.

Northey, L. (1982) The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979:
Protecting Prehistory for the Future. [Harvard Environmental Law
Review]{.underline}, Vol. 6, pp. 61, 81.

Rogers, K. O. (1985) Viable Forensic Archaeology through
Interdisciplinary Deference and Dialogue: A Prosecutor\'s Prescription.
[American Archaeology]{.underline}, Vol. 5, pp. 110ff.

\-\-\-- (1986) Practical Problems in ARPA Prosecutions (SAA Annual
Meeting, New Orleans).

\-\-\-\-- (1987) Visigoths Revisited: The Prosecution of Archaeological
Resource Thieves, Traffickers and Vandals. [Journal of Environmental Law
& Litigation]{.underline}, Vol. 2, pp. 217ff.

Reif, R. (1988) A Season That Has Seen Records Toppled Daily. [New York
Times]{.underline} December 11).

\-\-\-- (1988) Was this Statue Stolen? [National Law
Journal]{.underline} (November) p. 1.

\-\-\-- (1988) The Getty\'s Aphrodite: Fruit of an Illegal Dig?
[National Law Journal]{.underline} (November) p. 33.

Wilkerson C. (1988) Temple Lintel Pits Thais Against Art Museum. [New
York Times]{.underline} (July 17), p. 8, Column. 1.

Wilkinson, C. (1988) Law and the American West: The Search for an Ethic
of Place. [University of Colorado Law Review]{.underline}, Vol. 59,
p. 401.

Wilson, L. (1985) Students Dig Into History. [The Oregonian]{.underline}
(September 13), B1, Column. 2.

[Magazines, Newsletters, Newspapers and Reports:]{.underline}

Bureau of Land Management (1989) Operation S.A.V.E.: Annual Status
Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Oregon State Office, Fiscal
Year.

Connoisseur (1988) The Getty Statue: Beyond Legality. P. 202, (October).

Indian Artifact Magazine, June 1989, p. 17

[Mid-Columbia Archaeological Society Bulletin]{.underline} (1989)
Cultural Heritage Threatened, p. 2.

New York Times (1980) Government Rangers Pursue Robbers of Ancient
Indian Graves in Southwest. (June 23).

Rocky Mountain News (1988) Indiana Jones Won\'t Raid Mesa Verde. (April
24) A 1, Col. 1.

USA Today (1989) [Hawaii]{.underline}. (April 20) p. 6A, Col. 1.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1987) Cultural Resources \-- Problems
Protecting and Preserving Cultural Resources. Resources, Community and
Economic Development Division.

[Laws and Regulations:]{.underline}

*Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cypress vs. Goldberg and Feldman
Fine Arts, Inc.,* 717 F. Supp.

1374 (S.D. Ind. 1989).

Public Law (P.L.) 100-298, Stat. 432 (1988).

Act of October 28, 1988, P.L. 100-555, 102 Stat. 2778; "Domenici Bill".

Act of November 3, 1988, P.L. 100-588, 102 Stat. 2983; House Bill (H.B.)
4068.

16 U.S.C. 470aa-47011 (1979) Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

*United States vs. Austin*, No. 88-3300 (9^th^ Cir. 1990).

Arkansas Stat. Ann. 13-7-301 (1987).

Pennsylvania Stat. Ann. Tit. 71, 1047. Lb(3), (6) (Purdon Supp. 1988).

Warm Springs Tribal Ordinance (Code Chapter 490).

New Mexico Stat. Ann. 18-6-9(D).

Utah Code Ann. 63-18-27 (1986).

Arkansas Stat. Ann. 13-6-3-3(b) (1987).

North Carolina Gen. Stat. 70-1 (1985).

Oregon Rev. Stat. 358.905(6)(a)-(b) (1987).

36 C.F.R. 1.4(a) and 261.2 (1988).

Alabama Code 41-3-1 (1982).

45 C.F.R. 46.101-24 (1988).

Louisiana Rev. Stat. Ann. 41.1605-.1606 (West Supp. 1989).

North Carolina Gen. Stat. 121-125 (1986).

Oregon Rev. Stat. (O.R.S.) 273.718 et seq.

Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1987.

Missouri Rev. Stat. 253.400-407 (Supp. 1989), Historic Preservation
Revolving Fund Act.

New York Parks & Rec. Law 17.01-.11 (McKinney 1984) (Outdoor Recreation
Development Bond Act).

Utah code Ann. 63-18-25 (1989).

Oregon Rev. Stat. 358.920(3)-(4) (1987).

Alabama Code 41-3-5 (1975).

Washington, Ch. 44, Laws of 1989.

Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-3702.01 (Supp. 1988).

16 U.S.C 470gg(b)(3) (1979).

Idaho Code 67-4122 (1980).

Kansas Stat. Ann. 74-5408 (1985).

Oregon Rev. Stat. 273.711 (1987).

Idaho Code 67-4118 (1980).

Oregon Rev. Stat. 358.955 (1987).

Oregon Rev. Stat. 358.945 (1987).

16 U.S.C. 170gg(c) (1982).

42 U.S.C. 1996 (1982).

Alaska Stat. 29.45.050(b)(2)(B) (1988)

New Mexico Stat. Ann. 7-2-18.2 (1988).

Washington Rev. Code 79.08.109 (Supp. 1989).

Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, Department of Land
Conservation, Oregon's

Statewide Planning Goals 5 (1985).

New Jersey Stat. Ann. 40:55D-28(b)(6) (West Supp. 1988).

Alaska Stat. 41.35.060(b) (1988).

New Mexico Stat. Ann. 18-6-12 (1988).

Hawaii Rev. Stat. 6E-2 (1984).

Miss. Code Ann. 53-7-51 (Supp. 1988).

*Dept. of Natural Resources vs. Indiana Coal Counsil, Inc.,* 542 N.E.2d
1000 (Ind. 1989).

Arkansas Stat. Ann. 13-6-305 (1988).

Vermont Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, 765 (1988).

*United States vs. Jaques*, No. 83-129FR (D. Or. 1983), *aff d*, 753
F.2d 1084 (9^th^ Cir. 1984), *cert. denied*,

470 U.S. 1087 (1985).

*United States vs. Bender,* No. 81-119BE (D. O.r. 1981) (Trans. pp. 585,
602-603).

New Hampshire Stat. Rev. Ann. 227-C:10 (Supp. 1988).

25 U.S.C. 450(h).

16 U.S.C. 470-1(d)(3)(B).