Field Archaeologists as Eyewitnesses to Site Looting

24 Pages·2017·0.94 MB·English

arts
Article
Field Archaeologists as Eyewitnesses to Site Looting
BlytheAlisonBowmanBalestrieri
L.DouglasWilderSchoolofGovernment&PublicAffairs,VirginiaCommonwealthUniversity,
1001WestFranklinSt#2013,Richmond,VA23284,USA;[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:8May2018;Accepted:29August2018;Published:6September2018
Abstract: Inarecentworldwidestudyonthenature, scope, andfrequencyofarchaeologicalsite
looting, the vast majority of field archaeologists reported having had multiple encounters with
archaeological site looters both on- and off-site. Despite the criminalization of looting in most
countries’domesticstatutoryschemes, nearlyhalfofsurveyedfieldarchaeologistsdonotreport
lootingactivitytoexternallawenforcementorarchaeologicalauthoritieswhentheyencounterit.
Therationalesfortheiractions—orinactions—areexaminedwithinacriminologicalframework,and
fieldarchaeologists’perspectivesonlootersas“criminals”and“victims”areexplored. Thepaper
concludes with a consideration that the criminalization of looting creates an emergent duty to
reportamongarchaeologists,andhowtheychoosetoaddresssitelootingchangestheirroleinand
relationshiptothetradeinillicitlyobtainedantiquities.
Keywords: archaeologicalsitelooting;archaeologicalethics;criminalization
1. Introduction
Despitetheexistenceofvariousnationalandinternationalregulatoryefforts,theglobalantiquities
marketcontinuestobelargelyfedbyillicitdiggingatarchaeologicalsitesaroundtheworld. “Looting”
isconventionallydefinedastheillegalremovalofculturallysignificantmaterialfromarchaeological
sites for commercial gain, the act of which destroys archaeological context or evidence needed
to learn from the site (Bowman Proulx 2013), and is largely criminalized by many if not most
countries.Archaeologicalsitelootingtypicallyoccurswhenculturallysignificantobjectsindeveloping,
archaeologicallyrich“source”countriesareremovedwithoutpermissionandsubsequentlysoldand
collectedindeveloped,acquisitive,“demand”countries(BowmanProulx2013;Brodie2011). AsGill
andChippindale(1993)haveargued,damagetothearchaeologicallandscapehasbothintellectualand
materialconsequences. Thatis,whenarchaeologicalknowledgeislosttolooting,soisanimportant
source of cultural information, national identity, historical memory, and even economy. Looting
destroysboththetangibleandintangibleelementsofculturalheritage.
Lootinghasonlyrelativelyrecentlypiquedtheinterestofcriminologists, forwhomthetopic
istypicallysubsumedunderthebroaderrubricof“artcrime”(BowmanProulx2011),1 andthereis
a growing body of criminological research on looting and its interfacing with the trade in illicitly
obtainedartaswellasothertransnationalillicitmarkets.2 Specifically,sitelootingisoftenconflated
1 Cf.,forexample,(Tijhuis2006;Massy2001;Aarons2001;Aaronsetal.1998;Bernick1998;Conklin1994).
2 Theearliestcomprehensivecriminologicaltreatmentoflootingandantiquitiescanbetracedtotheworkofcriminologists
Polk&Alderwhowereamongthefirsttoexaminethetradespecificallyasatransnationalcriminalmarket.See(Alder
andPolk2002,2005). Forexample,SimonMackenzie’s2005doctoraldissertationwasthefirstscholarlyapplicationof
whitecollarcriminologytoexaminethe“demand”endofarchaeologicalsitelooting;EdgarTijhuis(2006)investigated
the licit–illicit interfacing of looted antiquities and the antiquities trade through a transnational criminological lens;
BowmanProulx(2010)situatedheranalysisofarchaeologicalsitelootingwithinanorganizedcriminalframework.Theseare
butthreeexamplesofthescholarlytreatmentoflootingwithinthespecificcontextofcriminology,allofwhichhelpedto
establishthescholarlyfoundationsuponwhichmuchcurrentworkhasdrawnandexpanded.
Arts2018,7,48;doi:10.3390/arts7030048 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts
Arts2018,7,48 2of24
witharttheft,thelatterofwhichtendstofocusonhigh-valuetheftsfrommuseums,galleries,orprivate
property(Tijhuis2006). Thisscholarlycomminglingofarttheftwithlootingisnonethelessproblematic
inthat,uponcloserexamination,onehasverylittleincommonwiththeother. Arttheft,forexample,
typicallyinvolvesthestealingofanidentifiableobjectownedbysomeone;lootedantiquities,onthe
other hand, are never-before-seen objects recovered through clandestine digging, meaning that
when they appear on the art market, they cannot be recognized and legally construed as stolen
(Brodie 2006). After all, as Gill and Chippindale (1993, p. 623) have observed, “Who can report a
Cycladicfigureasstolenwhenithasbeenlyingunseeninagraveformorethanfourthousandyears?”.
In fact, the only commonality among art thefts and the looting of archaeological sites is that both
activitiesinvolveillegallyremovedobjectstowhichsomesortofintangiblevalueandsignificance
have been attached. This impalpable value of art and antiquities is socially constructed, meaning
anobject’svalueiswhateveraparticularbeholderassignstoit,whetheritbecommercial,aesthetic,
orartisticinnature. Beyondthiscommondenominatorofsubjectivevalueattribution,however,art
theftandsitelootingareconceptuallydistinct,anditisonlyrelativelyrecentlythatcriminologists
havebeguntoexamineeachphenomenononitsownterms.
Thisemergentscholarlyinterestinsitelootinghascausedcriminologiststotakeanunprecedented
diveintotheworldofarchaeologicalscholarship,resultinginahyper-specialized—ifnotaltogether
boutique—research niche under which a growing number of criminologists can be subsumed (cf.,
forexample,BalcellsMagrans2018;MackenzieandDavis2014;Brisman2011). Inturn,archaeologists
havesimilarlybeguntoavailthemselvesofcriminologicalconceptsandterminology,drawingnew
attentiontothelootingofantiquitiesfromadiversifiedaudience.Today,theintersectionofarchaeology
withcriminologyraisesfewerquestioningeyebrowsamongscholars,andthereareevenarchaeologists
basedintheiruniversity’sdepartmentsofcriminology.
Whiletheintersectionofarchaeologywithcriminologyhasyieldedusefulscholarship,3anumber
ofproblematictrendshaveemerged.Thatis,theexaminationoflootingascriminalactivitybringswith
itpanoplyofsocio-legalimplicationsthat,atonetimeoranother,anumberofscholars—admittedly
includingthisauthor—haveoverlooked. Specifically,Iarguethatthewidespreadcriminalizationof
archaeologicalsitelooting—aswellasarchaeologists’applicationofcriminologicalterminology—e.g.,
crime,criminal,criminality,criminogenic,criminological,criminalize,stealing,theft,andsoforth—changes
notonlythenarrativeframeworksurroundinglootingbutthefieldarchaeologist’sobligationsupon
bearingwitnesstoit.Inotherwords,iflootingisacrimeencounterednotinfrequentlybyarchaeologists
inthefield,thenitbecomesincumbentuponfieldarchaeologistsaseyewitnessestocriminalactivity
tothinkofandrespondtoitdifferently.
This paper begins with a presentation of findings from a study focused on surveyed field
archaeologists’personalencounterswitharchaeologicallooting.Theactionsthatarchaeologistsreport
having taken after having borne witness to it are discussed, as well as archaeologists’ reported
justificationsforthoseactions. Therationalesfortheiractions—orinactions—inresponsetolootingare
examinedwithinacriminologicalframework,andthedichotomyoflootersaseither“criminals”or
“victims”isexplored. Thepaperconcludeswithaconsiderationthatcriminalizedarchaeologicalsite
lootingproducesanemergentdutytoreportamongarchaeologists,andthathowtheychoosetorespond
tosuchacrimechangestheirroleinandrelationshiptothetradeinillicitlyobtainedantiquities.4
3 Forexample,SimonMackenzie’s2005doctoraldissertationwasthefirstscholarlyapplicationofwhitecollarcriminologyto
examinethe“demand”endofarchaeologicalsitelooting;EdgarTijhuis(2006)investigatedthelicit–illicitinterfacingof
lootedantiquitiesandtheantiquitiestradethroughatransnationalcriminologicallens;BowmanProulx(2010)situatedher
analysisofarchaeologicalsitelootingwithinanorganizedcriminalframework.Thesearebutthreeexamplesofthescholarly
treatmentoflootingwithinthespecificcontextofcriminology,allofwhichhelpedtoestablishthescholarlyfoundations
uponwhichmuchcurrentworkhasdrawnandexpanded.
4 Provenancereferstothedocumentedownershiphistoryofanobject.Thetermisfrequentlyusedintheartcommunityto
refer,inotherwords,towhathashappenedtoanantiquitysinceitcameoutoftheground.Amongarchaeologists,onthe
otherhand,proveniencerefersnottopastownershiphistorybutinformationregardingtheoriginalfindspotoftheobject
(Coggins1969,1998);whereandhow,inotherwords,theantiquitycameoutoftheground.
Arts2018,7,48 3of24
2. FieldArchaeologists’ReportedExperienceswithSiteLooting
Given the relevance of fieldwork to the practice and disciplinary identity of archaeology5
(Holtorf2005),whichnecessarilyputsarchaeologistsincloseproximitytothephenomenonofsite
looting, field archaeologists’ personal assessments of and experiences with looting are a valuable
sourceofinformation. Whethertheagendainthefieldisexcavation,survey,post-excavationanalysis,
conservation, or site management, field archaeologists are “on the ground,” working on the very
sitesofinteresttolooters,andthereforehighlylikelytoexperiencesitelootingatsomepointandin
somecapacityduringtheirfieldcareers. Fieldarchaeologistsareverymuchakinto“eyewitnesses”
in that they are often the first professionals to encounter never-before-seen site looting—or even
lootingactivityinprogress—simplybyvirtueofwheretheywork. Theirfirsthandexperienceswith,
opinionsabout,andresponsestolocalsitelootingrepresentvitalfrontlineperspectivesonaglobal
issue(BowmanProulx2013).
Moreover, given the significance of fieldwork to the practice of archaeology, archaeologists’
experienceswithandthoughtsaboutlootingareevenmoresalientinthattheyrepresentbutonegroup
ofstakeholderswithdeeplyvestedinterestsinthematter. Thepracticeanddisciplinaryidentityof
archaeology,infact,verymuchdependonthefateofthearchaeologicalrecord,inwhichsitelooting
playsadirectandsignificantpart. Whenobjectsareillicitlyremovedfromthegroundandshippedoff
forsale,neverbeforehavingbeenseen—letalonestudied—therelationshipofthoseobjectstotheir
archaeologicalcontextandtheinformationaboutthehumanpastderivedfromitareirretrievably
lost. Archaeologicalinterpretationsofthepastnecessarilydependonthephysicalremainsofhuman
behavior,andthecontextinwhichantiquitiesandotherobjectsofculturalsignificancearefoundiskey
inreconstructingthepast.6 Forthelivelihoodofarchaeologicalscholarship,then,thearchaeological
recordiscentral,andfieldworkisthecentralmeansbywhichtoaccessit.
Whenfieldarchaeologistsdoencounterlooting,howdotheydecidewhatspecificaction—or
inaction—totakeinresponse? Whatresponsibility,ifany,belongstofieldarchaeologistsincurbing
lootingactivity?Onthe“demand”endofthetradeinunprovenancedantiquities,thedramatispersonae
of criminological interest have been the collectors, dealers, auction houses, and museums; on the
“source” end of things, some studies have examined the organization of looting and trafficking
networks.7Studiesonthespecificroleofarchaeologistsintheillicitantiquitiestradearelimited8and
few, if any, have focused exclusively on the experience of field archaeologists who have firsthand
encounterswithlooting.9 Withvestedinterestsbothpersonalandprofessionalfirmlyentrenchedin
theintellectualvalueofarchaeologicalresources,fieldarchaeologists’interactionswithandresponses
toillicitdiggingandsitedestructionwarrantcloserscrutiny.
5 Moser(2007)writesthatarchaeologicalfieldworkisnotonlya“riteofpassagethatindividualsmustpasstogainadmission
totheprofessionalcommunity,butalsoasaculturallocusofexperiencethatservestoforgetheir[archaeologists’]identity”
(p.243).Infact, archaeologistswhohavenotordonotparticipateinfieldworkareoftencharacterizedas‘armchair
archaeologists’(FlanneryandMarcus1998,p.36)—anot-so-flatteringnicknamethatconjurestheimageofa“dilettantewho
spinsfinetheoriesfrominadequatefactsandneverrollsuphissleevestodoanyfieldworkhimself”(Summers1950,p.101).
Itishardlysurprising,then,thatfieldworkliesatthecoreofarchaeology’sdisciplinaryidentityaswellasitsscientific
authenticityfrombothinsideandout(Holtorf2005;DeBoer1999).
6 Contextyieldsinformationnotonlyaboutwhereanobjectisfound,butalsoonhowitcametobethere,andwhathas
subsequentlyhappenedtoit(Fagan1985).Anarchaeologicalsiteisacomplexwebofrelationships,themeaningsof
whicharemorethanthesumoftheirparts(Brodie2002),andthuslootedantiquitiesare“culturalorphanswhich,torn
fromtheircontexts,remainforeverdumbandvirtuallyuselessforscholarlypurposes”(Cannon-Brookes1994,p. 350).
Forarchaeologists,bothanobjectanditscontextareequallyimportant;inotherwords,“’itisnotwhatyoufindbuthow
youfindit’”(Taylor1948,p.154).
7 Cf.,forexample,MackenzieandDavis(2014);BalcellsMagrans(2018).
8 Cf.,forexample,(Brodie2011).
9 Cf.(BowmanProulx2011).
Arts2018,7,48 4of24
Inanextensiverecentstudy10ontheglobalscope,nature,andfrequencyofarchaeologicalsite
looting, from which select data are presented here, Bowman Proulx (2013) invited nearly 15,000
archaeologistsworkingthroughouttheworldtoparticipateinsurveysandinterviewsabouttheir
experienceswithandopinionsaboutsitelooting.Thispaperpresentsqualitativedataderivedfrom
this study, which were analyzed by means of an emergent approach. With a robust response rate
of 16% (N = 2358), 59.1% of the sample population were male, 27.9% between the ages of 31 and
40; 91.7%heldatleastamaster’sdegree, and82.6%spokeEnglishastheirfirstlanguage. Intotal,
29.9%oftherespondentsindicatedthattheyhadbeenactiveinarchaeologicalfieldworksincethe
1990s,witharchaeologicalsiteexcavationasthemostcommonlyreportedtypeoffieldworkexperience
(81.8%). Nearlythree-quartersofthe2358respondents(70%)indicatedthattheyhadparticipatedin
10ormorearchaeologicalprojectsintheircareerstodate,andatotalof118countrieswerereported
amongrespondentsastheprimarylocationofthemajorityoftheirarchaeologicalfieldworkexperience.
ThetypicalsurveyrespondentwasanEnglish-speakingmalewithbothhighereducationandprofessional
traininginarchaeologyand/orrelateddisciplines,withanywherebetween10and20yearsoffieldwork
experience, primarily on archaeological site excavation (Bowman Proulx 2011, 2013). Participants’
feedback is presented below accompanied by their random, computer-generated identification
numbersandtheirreportedlocationofthemajorityoftheirarchaeologicalfieldworkexperience.
3. Archaeologists’ReportedEyewitnessEncounterswithLooting
Nearly80%(N=1662)ofrespondentsreportedhavingwitnessedfirsthandlootingorevidenceof
looting11 whileparticipatinginfieldworkofanykind.AsreflectedinFigure1below,thisreported
looting is a globally pervasive phenomenon, not limited to one aggregate geographic region12
oranother:
10 See(BowmanProulx2013).Intotal,2358onlinesurveyswerecompletedwhichprovidedquantitativedataforregression
analysis,andthesurvey’sopen-endedquestionsaswellasfollow-upinterviewsyieldedanadditional3009piecesof
qualitativefeedbackforemergentanalysis.
11 Typically,thisisevidenceofunauthorizeddigging,whichcanbeintheformoftrenches,holes,pits,andthehaphazard
scatteringofartifactswhichareclearlynotpartofsystematic,authorizedexcavation.Otherreportedevidenceincludes
“sievescreenssetupatasitewherenoarchaeologicalteams[are]working”;“stashesofhiddenlootedartifactsnearthe
site”;humanburialsdisinterred;collapsedwallsorotherarchitecturalfeatures;brokenpottery,emptybeercans,cigarette
butts,footwrappers,andothermiscellaneoustrash(BowmanProulx2013).
12 ThesestandardgeographicregionsareestablishedintheCIAWorldFactbookassuch:NorthAmerica=Canada,United
States,Mexico;CentralAmerican&Caribbean=Antigua,Barbados,Belize,CostaRica,DominicanRepublic,ElSalvador,
Guatemala,Honduras,NetherlandsAntilles,Panama,PuertoRico,Turks&Caicos;SouthAmerica=Argentina,Bolivia,
Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Ecuador,Peru;Western,CentralEurope,&UnitedKingdom=Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,
Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Hungary,Iceland,Ireland,Italy,Norway,Poland,Portugal,Scotland,Spain,Sweden,
Switzerland,Malta,Netherlands,UnitedKingdom;Eastern,SoutheasternEurope,&Eurasia=Albania,Croatia,Bulgaria,
Armenia,Georgia,Greece,Lithuania,Macedonia,Romania,Russia,Serbia,Slovakia,Slovenia,Turkey,Turkmenistan,
Ukraine;Asia,SoutheastAsia,SouthernAsia=Cambodia,China,India,Japan,Korea,Laos,Mongolia,Pakistan,Thailand;
Oceania=Australia,Fiji,NewZealand,Palau;Africa=Cameroon,Botswana,Congo,Egypt,Eritrea,Ghana,Kenya,Libya,
Madagascar,Morocco,Nigeria,Senegal,SouthAfrica,Sudan,Tanzania,Tunisia,Uganda;MiddleEast=Cyprus,Iran,Iraq,
Israel,Jordan,Lebanon,“NearEast,”Palestine,Syria,UnitedArabEmirates.
Arts2018,7,48 5of24
Arts 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24
MIDDLE EAST 131
AFRICA 18
OCEANIA 19
ASIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA,… 37
EASTERN, SOUTHEASTERN EPE & … 152
WESTERN, CENTRAL EPE & UK 142
S. AMERICA 118
CTRL AMERICA & CARIB 181
N. AMERICA 864
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

FigFiugruer1e. 1A. Agggrgergegataetel oloccaatitoionnsso off aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiissttss’’ rreeppoorrtteedd eexxppeerrieienncecse swwitiht hlolootointign.g .
FuFruthrethr,erp, epresorsnoanlael xepxepreireinencceew witihth lolooottiinngg wwaass mmoorree ccoommmmoonnlyly rreeppoortretded amamonogn gpapratirctiipcaipnatsn ts
witwhitmh omroertei mtimeea anndd eexxppeerriieennccee iinn ththe efiefiledl.d T.hTish iiss niostn uontexupneecxtpede cinte tdhaint ththeayt sitmhepylys himavpel yhahda mveorhea d
moorpepooprtpuonrittiuens itthiersouthgrhoouugt hthoeuitr tchaereirercsa rtoe eernsctoounentecro luonotteinrgl ooor tienvgidoenrceev oidf eint. cAedodfitiito.nAadlldy,i ttihoensael ly,
theesxepeexripeenrcieesn cweisthw iltohotlionogt inwgerwe enreotn ootnoe-ntiem-teim oeccoucrcruernrceensc; etsh;et hoevoevrwerhwelhmeilnmgi nmgamjoarijtoyr it(y92(%92) %o)f of
parptaicritpicaipnatsntisn dinidcaictaetdedth tahtatt htheyeyh haaddo obbsseerrvveedd lloooottiinngg oonn mmoorree tthhaann oonnee aarcrhchaeaoeloolgoigciacla slitsei,t ea,nadn tdhatht at
eacehacohf tohfo tsheossiet essithesa dhabde ebneelono ltoeodteodn omno mreotrhea tnhoann eooncec aoscicoansi.oAn.s Aons eoanrec haarcehoaloeogliostgrisetm raemrkaerdk,e“dI, c“aIn ’t
thicnakno’tf tahiMnka oyfa as iMtea[yIa’v seitsee [eIn’v]ew seitehno] uwtiltohootuetr lpooittse.r” pits.”
It is reasonable to conclude that looting is an iterative phenomenon that occurs on more
It is reasonable to conclude that looting is an iterative phenomenon that occurs on more
archaeological sites than not. In fact, a personal encounter with looting appears to be so commonplace
archaeologicalsitesthannot. Infact,apersonalencounterwithlootingappearstobesocommonplace
an occurrence that, as one surveyed archaeologist working in Cyprus noted, “[we’re taught that] the
anoccurrencethat,asonesurveyedarchaeologistworkinginCyprusnoted,“[we’retaughtthat]the
possibility of meet[ing] with looters while you’re working on site is just a given; it’s just a known
possibilityofmeet[ing]withlooterswhileyou’reworkingonsiteisjustagiven; it’sjustaknown
aspect of archaeological fieldwork.”
aspectofarchaeologicalfieldwork.”
While the majority of archaeologists report having had experiences with on-site looting ex post
Whilethemajorityofarchaeologistsreporthavinghadexperienceswithon-sitelootingexpost
facto in the field (e.g., missing tools, equipment, and artifacts; collapsed architectural features; and
factointhefield(e.g.,missingtools,equipment,andartifacts;collapsedarchitecturalfeatures;andholes,
holes, site disarrangement, or other visible effects), nearly one-quarter (24.1%) of respondents have
sitedisarrangement,orothervisibleeffects),nearlyone-quarter(24.1%)ofrespondentshaveinfact
in fact been eyewitnesses to looting activity in progress on site. When field archaeologists do interact
beeneyewitnessestolootingactivityinprogressonsite. Whenfieldarchaeologistsdointeractwith
with looters, it is more likely to be an off-site occurrence. In fact, 87.1% of respondents reported
loohtaevrsin,git iinstmeraocrteedli koeffl-ysittoe bweitahn loooftfe-srist—ebooccthu rardemncitet.edIn afnadc ts,u8s7p.e1c%tedo.f Trehsep coonndteexnttss orfe tphoerstee dofhf-asivtein g
inteexrapcetreidenocfefs-s itienwcluitdheldo otcearssu—alb otchonavdemrsiattteiodnasn dbseutwspeeecnt eda.rcThhaeeocolongtiesxtt saonfdth elsoeooteffr-,s itaenedx pemriaennyc es
incalurcdheadeoclaosguiastlsc roenpvoerrtseadt itohnast mbeatnwye elonoaterrcsh haeaovleo sgpisotkaennd olpoeontleyr, aanndd fmreaelnyy wairtchh taheeomlo gabisotsutr ethpeoirrt eodwtnh at
mapnayrtliocoipteartisohna ivne uspnaouktehnooripzeendl ydiagngdinfgr.e eOlythweri tahrcthheameolaobgoisutts tthaelkiredow anbopuatr thiacivpinagti obneeinn uspneacuitfhicoarlliyze d
digagpipnrgo.aOchtehde roafrf-cshitaee oblyo gliosotstetrasl,k ewdhoab pouretshenatveidn gthbeemen wspitehc ifilocoatleldy aiptepmros,a csheeekdinogff -rseitsepobnydleonottse’ rs,
whaoppprreosveanl,t eaddmthireamtiowni, tohr lcooontfeidrmitaetmiosn,: seekingrespondents’approval,admiration,orconfirmation:
ThTehye[ylo [oloteortse]rsa]r aeraec atcutaulalyllyp rporuouddo fofw whhaattt htheeyya arreefi fninddiinngg….. .TThhuus sththeye yviveiwew thtehmemseslveelvs eass as
hehlpeilnpgintgo tsoa slvalavgaegew whahtact acnanb bees saalvlvaaggeedd..
——AArrcchhaaeeoollooggiisstt ##3311008877, ,wwesetsetrenr nUUninteitde dStSatteaste s
[Looters have] a desire to obtain insight on cultural significance/interpretation and
[Looters have] a desire to obtain insight on cultural significance/interpretation and
commercial value specific to the specimen(s).
commercialvaluespecifictothespecimen(s).
——AArrcchhaaeeoollooggiisstt ##3333556622, ,ssoouutthheerrnn/s/osuotuhtehaesatestrenr nUnUinteidte SdtaStteast es
Nearly half of the total surveyed archaeologists (49%) also reported having been offered looted
Nearlyhalfofthetotalsurveyedarchaeologists(49%)alsoreportedhavingbeenofferedlooted
items for sale:
itemsforsale:
SometimesIamapproachedbecause[they]don’tknowIamanarchaeologist. OthertimesI
a m a p p r o a c h e d b e c a u s e i n d i v idualsthinkthatbecauseIamanarchaeologistIwillwantto
bTuaynzwanhiaa,t Tthuneiysiha,a Uvgealnodoat;e Mdi.ddle East = Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, “Near East,” Palestine,
Syria, United Arab Emirates.
—Archaeologist#500754,Peru
Arts 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
Sometimes I am approached because [they] don’t know I am an archaeologist. Other times
I am approached because individuals think that because I am an archaeologist I will want
Arts20t1o8 ,b7u,y48 what they have looted. 6of24
—Archaeologist #500754, Peru
Figure 2 below shows this data broken down by the top fieldwork locations in which
Figure 2 below shows this data broken down by the top fieldwork locations in which
archaeologistsreportedhavingbeenaskedtopurchasealooteditemonatleastoneoccasion:
archaeologists reported having been asked to purchase a looted item on at least one occasion:
96%
85% 85%
77%
65% 65%
54%
44% 44%
38%
32% 34% 35%

FFiigguurree 22.. %% RReessppoonnddeennttss ssoolliicciitteedd ooffff--ssiittee ffoorr ppuurrcchhaassee ooff llooootteedd oobbjjeeccttss..
BBeeiinngg ooffffeerreedd aanni tietemmo offq uquesetsiotinoanbalbelep rporvoevneannacnecfeo rfopru prcuhracsheaisse nios tnaont eaxnp eexripeenrcieenlicme iltiemdittoedo ntoe
oconuen ctroyuonrtrpya rotro fptahret wofo rtlhdef owroarrcldh afeoorl oagricshtsa;eroaltohgeirs,tist;a praptehaerrs, tiot baepapecoarms mtoo nbpel acae coocmcumrroennpcela.ce
occurTrhenecdea. tathusfarcanbesummarizedassuch: sitelootingisanendemic,iterativeactivitywith
whicThhthe edvataas tthmuasj ofarirt ycaonf bfiee lsduamrcmhaareiozelodg aisst ssuhcahv:e shitaed lopoetrinsogn ias laenx penerdieemnciec., Iitteirsastiovceo amctmivoitnyp wlaicteh,
winhfaiccht, tthhea tviatsist omftaejonrcitoyn soifd feireeldd aanrcihnaeevoitlaobgliestpsa hrtavofe thhaedfi epledrsaorcnhaal eeoxlpoegricieanlceex.p Ietr iise nscoe c.oWmhmenonlopoltaicneg,
iins efnaccto, utnhtaetr eitd isi nofttheen ficeolnds,iditeirsedm aunc hinmevoirteabcloem pmarot noff otrhea rfcihelade oalrocghiasetsoltoogiwcaitln eexspsetrhieenacfet.e rWmhaethn
loofoltoinogti nisg ,enractohuenrtethreadn itno tehnec ofiuenldte, ritl oios timngucahc tmivoitrye icnomprmoognre sfso.r Tahrcishameoalkoegsisstes ntsoe ,wgiitvneenss ththaet
aufntedromcuamthe onft elododtiinggg,i nrgatihsenr etcheasns atroi leynccloaundnteesrt ilnoeo,tsinogm aucctihviotfyi tino cpcruorgsraetssn. iTghhtisw mhaekneasr csehnaseeo,l oggivisetns
tahreato fuf-nsidteo.c1u3mTheinstiesdn odtitgogsianyg, hios wneevceers,stharaitlyfi elcdlaanrdchesateionleo, gissots mneuvcehr hoafv eitp eorcsocunrasl inatte rnaicgtihotn swwhietnh
alorochteareso,blougtiwstsh eanret hoifsf-dsiotees.13o cTchuirs, iits insomt utoc hsamy,o hreowlikeevlyert,o thhaatp fpieelnd oafrfc-shiateeoinloagvisatrsi enteyvoefr shoacviael pceornstoenxtasl.
interactions with looters, but when this does occur, it is much more likely to happen off-site in a
v4.aArierctyh aoef osloocgiaisl tcso’nRteepxtosr.t edResponsestoLooting
Whensurveyedarchaeologistshavewitnessedlootinginprogressonsiteoritsafter-effects,what
4. Archaeologists’ Reported Responses to Looting
actionsdotheytake? Figure3belowshowsvaryingresponses;theseresponsescanbeaggregatedinto
threeWbrhoeand scuartevgeoyreide sa:ricnhtearenoalolgacisttiso nh,aevxet ewrniatnleascsteiodn ,loaontdinign aicnt iponro.gress on site or its after-effects,
whatA ascstihoonws ndoab tohveey, wtahkeen? fiFeiglduraer c3h abeeolloowgi ssthsocwhos ovseartyoinhga nrdeslepothnesems; atthteersein rteersnpaolnlys,esth ceamn obset
acogmgrmegoanteadct iinotnoi sthtroede obcruomade nctatthegeoervieidse: nincteeornfalol oatcitniogna,c etixvtietrynaanl dacdtiioscnu, sasnidt winitahctoiothne. rteammembers
beforAesm sohvoinwgno anb.oInvete, rwmhseonf efixetledr naarlcrheasepoolnosgeiss—ts tchhaotoiss,en toot ifihcaantdiolen tohfes ommaetteexrt einrntearlnaaultlhyo, rtihtye —mfoewst
caorcmhmaeoonlo gaicsttisotno oisk oton ldyoacsuimngelneta cthtieo ne.vRidaethnecre, mofo sltooarticnhga eaoclotigviisttys fianrsdt ddoisccuumsse nitt twheitlho ootitnhge,r ntoetaimfy
mothemerbteearsm bmefeomreb emrso,vainndg tohnen. Icno ntetarcmtsa roefl eevxatnertneaxlt errensaploanustehso—rittyh,awt hisi,c hnoistitfyicpaictiaolnly osof msoemsoer texotfelroncaall
aauutthhoorriittyy—wfiethwo avrecrhsaigeohltoogfisatrsc htoaoeko loongliyc aal ssiintegslea nadctiroenm. aRinatsh.eInr, smomoset acorcuhnateroielso,gtihstesn foirtsitfi dedocaugmenecnyt
tchoeu lldoobteinags,p neocitfiifcyp ootlhiceer utneaitmta smkeedmwbeirths, caunltdu rtahlehne rciotangtaecpt rao treeclteiovnan(et .ge.x,tIetranlya’ls aCuotmhaonridtoy,C warhabicinhi eirsi
perlaTutelaPatrimonioCulturale);inothers,itmightbealocalunitofanarchaeologicalauthority(e.g.,

Greece’sArchaeologicalServicehasnearly50departmentslocatedthroughoutthecountrywhich,
13 Many Italian tombaroli (tomb-robbers), for example, report having had to move their illicit digging activities
to nighttime in recent years due to the creation of art and antiquities squads across Italian law enforcement
agencies (Perticarari and Giuntani 1986).
13 ManyItaliantombaroli(tomb-robbers),forexample,reporthavinghadtomovetheirillicitdiggingactivitiestonighttime
inrecentyearsduetothecreationofartandantiquitiessquadsacrossItalianlawenforcementagencies(Perticarariand
Giuntani1986).
Arts 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24
typically some sort of local authority with oversight of archaeological sites and remains. In some
countries, the notified agency could be a specific police unit tasked with cultural heritage protection
(e.g., Italy’s Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela Patrimonio Culturale); in others, it might be a local unit of
Arts2018,7,48 7of24
an archaeological authority (e.g., Greece’s Archaeological Service has nearly 50 departments located
throughout the country which, among other things, supervise local archaeological projects). Beyond
amongotherthings,superviselocalarchaeologicalprojects). Beyondthesesteps,aboutone-quarterof
these steps, about one-quarter of archaeologists reported having taken this additional step of some
archaeologistsreportedhavingtakenthisadditionalstepofsometypeofexternalnotification.
type of external notification.
No action taken
24%
61% 14%
Handled internally (some
type of documentation and/or
discussion among team
members or and/or direct
intervention with looters

FFiigguurree 33.. AAccttiioonnss ttaakkeenn bbyy aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiissttss uuppoonn oobbsseerrvvaannccee ooff lloooottiinngg,, iinn aaggggrreeggaattee..
FFoorr ththoosesew hwohaoc tuacatlulyalolbys eorbvseedrvilelidci tidlliigcigti ndgigagctiinvgit yaicntipvritoyg riens s,psreovgerreaslsr,e sspeovnerdaeln trsepspeorsnodneanlltys
cpoenrsfroonnatlelyd cthoenflrooonteterds: the looters:
II ddrorovveet otwowaradrsd[st h[ethloeo tleorost]e,rssc]a, risncgartihnegm thofefm;t hoefnf;I ttahlekne dI wtaitlhke[tdh ewloitoht e[rtsh]ea nldooattetersm] patnedd
taottceomnpvtiendce toth ceomnvtoinscteo tph.em to stop.
——AArrcchhaaeeoollooggiisstt NNoo.. 2299776611,, SSoouutthheerrnn ccooaasstt ooff PPeerruu
I confronted the looters and asked them to stop and empty their pockets. Then I explained
Iconfrontedthelootersandaskedthemtostopandemptytheirpockets. ThenIexplained
cultural resource laws… and the importance of conservation.
culturalresourcelaws... andtheimportanceofconservation.
——AArcrhchaaeeoolologgisist t##88332200, ,NNoorrtthhwweesstt PPllaaiinnss,, UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess
For those archaeologists who reported being approached off-site by both admitted and
Forthosearchaeologistswhoreportedbeingapproachedoff-sitebybothadmittedandsuspected
suspected looters, many reported having tried to turn the encounter into an educational opportunity:
looters,manyreportedhavingtriedtoturntheencounterintoaneducationalopportunity:
I’ve had long discussions with local Mayans regarding what is legal and what is not, as well
I’vehadlongdiscussionswithlocalMayansregardingwhatislegalandwhatisnot,aswell
as why protecting the archaeological record benefits their community.
aswhyprotectingthearchaeologicalrecordbenefitstheircommunity.
—Archaeologist #17491, Yucatan, Mexico
—Archaeologist#17491,Yucatan,Mexico
I’ve urged holders of looted items to donate them to a local museum.
I’veurgedholdersoflooteditemstodonatethemtoalocalmuseum.
—Archaeologist #29761, Southern coast of Peru
—Archaeologist#29761,SoutherncoastofPeru
The common thread in these reported experiences is archaeologists’ efforts to ameliorate the
encoTunhteerc obmy mtuornninthgr eita idntion athne ismeprreopmorptetud oepxppoerrtieunnciteys fiosra erdchuaceaotiloong iasntsd’ eofufotrretasctho. aWmheillieo nraotbeleth ine
einntceonut,n ttehrisb yretsupronninseg iits inhtaordalny imrepalriosmticp tfuoro aplpl oarrtcuhnaietyolfoogrisetdsu wcahtioo nenacnoduonutetrr elaocoht.inWg hiinle fnlaogbrlaenitne
idnetleinctto,t. hisresponseishardlyrealisticforallarchaeologistswhoencounterlootinginflagrantedelicto.
IInn ssuumm,, mmoorree tthhaann hhaallff ooff rreessppoonnddiinngg fifieelldd aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiissttss cchhoooossee ttoo ddooccuummeenntt lloooottiinngg oorr
eevviiddeennccee ooff iitt bbeefoforree nnootitfiyfyiningg ana nexetxetrenranl aaluathuothriotryi toyf soofmsoem soerts.o Urts.uUalsluya, ltlhyi,s tihsi csoinstacoctn wtaictth wa iltohcaal
laorccahlaaeroclhoageioclaolg aicuatlhaouritthyo, raitnyd,a snodmsoetmimeteims seusbssuebqsueqenutelnyt lay laawlaw enefnofrocrecmemenent taauuththoorritiyty.. SSlliigghhttllyy mmoorree
oofftteenn tthhaann nnoott,, aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiissttss iinnccoorrppoorraattee tthhee nnoottiifificcaattiioonn ooff aapppprroopprriiaattee aauutthhoorriittiieess iinnttoo tthheeiirr aaccttiioonnss,,
aanndd wwhheerree ppoossssiibbllee,, aa nnuummbbeerr ooff fifieelldd aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiissttss cchhoooossee ttoo hhaannddllee tthheeiirr fifirrsstthhaanndd eexxppeerriieenncceess
wwiitthh lloooottiinngg aass aann ooppppoorrttuunniittyy ttoo aaddvvooccaattee tthhee pprreesseerrvvaattiioonn ooff aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiiccaall hheerriittaaggee.. AAllll ooff tthheessee
aaccttiioonnss aappppeeaarr ttoob been nootto onnlylyc coonnggruruenenttw witihtha racrhcaheaoeloolgoigsitsst’sp’ rparcaticcteicaen adnpdr pormoomtiootnioonf ostfe swteawrdasrhdisphoipf
Arts2018,7,48 8of24
thearchaeologicalrecord,14 butarealsoconsistentwithdomesticlegislation—mostcountrieshave
criminalizedarchaeologicalsitelooting.15
Butwhatabouttheotherhalfofrespondentswho,uponencounteringlooting,evidenceoflooting,
orevenlootersthemselvesinthefield,anddespitestatutorycriminalizationoflooting,reportedthat
theydidnotalertanyexternalauthorityandinsteadeitherchoseonlytohandlethematterinternally
throughprojectdocumentation,orchosetotakenoactionatall? Avarietyofexplanationswasoffered
forthis. Somenotedthefutilityofsuchaction,suggestingthatlawenforcementorlocalarchaeological
authoritiesweresimplyoutnumbered,ineffective,uninterested,orevencomplicit:
IntheMimbresValleyitiscertainlytakenseriously,butwiththevastamountoflandanda
limitednumberoflawenforcementofficersthisismoreeasilysaidthandone...
—Archaeologist28792,SouthwesternUnitedStates
EveryoneintheMayalowlandsknowsthefrequencyoflooting[so]thereisnoreasonto
appearsonaïveastonotifyauthorities.
—Archaeologist#8593,Guatemala
[Lawenforcement]rarelydopatrolsandnoonehasbeenprosecutedfromthe[looted]sites
whereIwork.
—Archaeologist#28696,MidwesternUnitedStates
Lawenforcementandjudges[do]nottakethe[looting]lawsseriously.
—Archaeologist#37420,NorthwesternUnitedStates
Itcanbedangeroustointervenepersonallyinalootingincidentaspolicemaybecomplicit
ordisinterested.
—Archaeologist#17551,UnitedKingdom
Other archaeologists reported feeling utterly powerless in stopping the looting, and that
criminalization as such was an ineffective deterrent. These archaeologists chose not to take any
externalactioneither,astheyfeltitwouldbefutile,ineffective,orevendangerous:
[Thelooters]thinkthatarchaeologistsdonothavethepowertodenouncethem,andthey
areusuallyright.
—Archaeologist6916,Switzerland
Thepunishmentistoolow[forlooting]tobother.
—Archaeologist#25102,Austria
They[thelooters]hadguns.
—Archaeologist32605,SouthwesternUnitedStates
Ihavebeenadvisednevertoapproachpeoplewefindonsiteswithoutawaytocontact
lawenforcement.
—Archaeologist#27046,SoutheasternUnitedStates
14 Among other tenets, most archaeological codes of ethics include language emphasizing the archaeologist’s role in
recording,conserving,preserving,andstewardshipofthearchaeologicalrecord.See,forexample,theSocietyforAmerican
Archaeology’sPrinciplesofArchaeologicalEthics,adopted1996.Availableonlineat:http://www.saa.org.
15 Mostcountrieshavedomesticstatutoryschemesthatcriminalizearchaeologicalsitelooting.Thearchaeologicalrecordis
usuallyconstruedasStateproperty,theunpermittedremovalandexportofwhichistantamounttotheft.TheUnitedStates
issomewhatofaninterestingoutlierinthatarchaeologicalsitelootingisonlycriminalizedastheftonfederal/state/tribal
lands—notonprivateproperty—however,giventhatasignificantportionoftheUnitedStatesisinfactpublicland,looting
isstilllargelycriminalizedineffectacrossthecountry.See16U.S.C.§470ee(a)(2012).
Arts2018,7,48 9of24
Onearchaeologistsuggestedthatshetooknoexternalactionbecausethelootersearnsolittle
fromtheirfindsandthatitemsaresimplynotvaluableenoughtobotherreporting:
Somepeoplewhoactuallyconductthelootinginmyareaandeitherkeepwhattheyfindor
sellittosmall-scaledealersanddon’tearnsignificantquantities.
—Archaeologist#35983,Peru
Otherarchaeologistsnotedthatperhapsreticencetocontactexternalauthorities—ortakeany
actionwhatsoever—regardingsitelootingwasdue,inpart,toignoranceorevenindifferenceamong
fieldarchaeologiststhemselves:
Manyarchaeologistsworkingoutsidetheirhomecountriesarenotwellenoughinformed
aboutinternationalconventionsandlocallaws. Andfrankly,alotofarchaeologistsjustdon’t
careaboutlootinguntilithappensontheirsites.
—Archaeologist#29281,Belize
Ithinkmostarchaeologistsknowinstinctivelythatlootingiswrong,butthey’reill-prepared
todealwithitorunsurewhattodoaboutit.
—Archaeologist#1830,Britain
Some[archaeologists]arescaredofdiscussinglooting, maybebecauseoffundingissues,
ortheyencourageitbutdon’twanttoadmitit.
—Archaeologist#1141,UnitedStates
Maybe after I get tenure I can be more vocal [about looting], right now I’m keeping my
mouthshut.
—Archaeologist#43726,Peru&Mexico
Respondent #1141 appears to suggest that archaeologists may choose to either document the
looting and move on, or do nothing about it altogether, because to do so could have far-reaching
implications for their research and, in turn, their careers. As Brodie and Luke (2006) have noted,
financial support for archaeological excavations often comes indirectly from private collectors,
and many archaeologists are employed by museums or universities whose donors and trustees
areoftenantiquitiescollectors. Beyondissuesofprojectfunding,archaeologicalfieldworkandstudy
permitscanalsobedifficulttoobtain. Forexample,ifanarchaeologistwantedtostudyaparticular
object held in a museum’s collection, she would be required to submit a study application whose
acceptanceissubjecttothediscretionofthatmuseum. Whileitisnosecretthatmanymuseumshavea
longandtroubledhistorywithacquiringlootedantiquitiesfortheircollections,16foranarchaeologist
tosuggestthataparticularmuseum’scollectingagendacouldinsomewayaggravateillicitdigging
andsitedestructionmightverywellhamperherabilitytoreceiveastudypermit,excavationpermit,
orprojectfunding. Thesedifficultiescan,inturn,jeopardizeherresearchproductivity,which,atleast
inacademia,isasalientfactoronwhichscholarsareevaluatedforpromotionandtenure.17
Thatarchaeologicalfieldworkissubjecttoahostofcomplexpoliticalrelationshipsamongits
stakeholdersisnosurprise. Socialscienceofanysortisinherentlyandinevitablypolitical,andthisis
reflectedinthespectrumofsurveyedarchaeologists’attitudestowardlootingactivity. Thevariationin
archaeologists’responsestoillicitdiggingisaclearreflectionofthehighlynuancedsocioeconomic,
16 Cf.,forexample,(FelchandFrammolino2011).
17 Cf.,forexample,theArchaeologicalInstituteofAmerica’ssuggestedindicesfortheevaluationofclassicalarchaeologists
forpromotionand/ortenureatNorthAmericancollegesandUniversities:conductingdatacollection,obtainingresearch
fundingandpermits,andresearchpublication.Availableonlineathttps://www.archaeological.org/careers/tenure(AIA
HigherEducationCommittee2016)
Arts2018,7,48 10of24
politicalcontexts, legalframeworks, andculturalcontingencieswhichlendshapeandmeaningto
illicitdiggingfromoneparticularsitetothenext.
Byfarthemostcommonexplanationamongsurveyedarchaeologistsastowhymanyofthem
chosetoeithersimplyaddressthematterinternallyordonothingatalluponencounteringlooting
or looters on- and off-site had to do with the nature of an archaeologist’s relationship with the
communitieswithinwhichsheworks. Thatis,somearchaeologistschoosenottoreportlootingactivity
orlooteditemslargelyoutofsympathyforthelocalsconductingthelooting:
FranklyI’mambivalenttowardslootingactivitiesbecauseitisofteneconomicnecessitythat
promptspeopletolootarchaeologicalsites.
—Archaeologist#29761,Peru
WhenIhavebeenofferedbysomeonetobuyorlookatlootedmaterials,ithasalwaysbeen
bylocalpeopleinthecommunitiesinwhichIworked. So,Inevertriedtoreportittoany
higherauthorities.
—Archaeologist#15337,Belize
IdidnothingwhenofferedlooteditemsforsaleinPeruandMexicobecausetheitemswere
smallandpeopleinvolvedwereclearlyatthelowestlevelofthetrade.
—Archaeologist#43726,Peru&Mexico
Ifindithardtoblamethelocals,sincelootedmaterialcanbringinoverayearortwoworth
ofincome,andthesepeopletendtobepoorfarmerstryingtosupporttheirfamilies.
—Archaeologist#20734,Belize
Iworkedwithsomelocalswhowouldprotectmewiththeirlives,andIthem. Iknowthey
hadlootedinthepast... Theyarenotgettingrichbylooting. Althoughtheymaybegetting
bywithlooting.
—Archaeologist#11566,Belize
Other archaeologists worried that, were they to report to an external authority, they risked
alienatingthecommunitiesinwhichtheywork,whichcouldencouragefurtherlootingoraltogether
jeopardizetheabilitytocontinuefieldworkthere:
It’s hard to confront the looters when they live there and we [the archaeologists] do not.
Toconfrontthemriskspissingthemoffandcouldevenleadtoincreasedlootingonsites
wherethey’veseenusworkingafterweleave.
—Archaeologist#685,UnitedStates
Forwhateverreason,afieldarchaeologistmayfindherselfinanuncomfortablepredicament: call
outthelootersontheirdestructivebehaviorandriskjeopardizingnotonlyherownsafetybuther
fieldworkactivities,researchproductivity,andcareertrajectorybydamagingrelationswithherhost
community;or,donothingandriskenablingthecontinueddestructionofarchaeologicalresources.
5. JustificationsforNonreportingtoExternalAuthorities
Justificationsforarchaeologists’decisionsnottocontactrelevantexternalarchaeologicalorlaw
enforcementauthoritiesortotakenoactionatallcanbeaggregatedassuch:
• Sympathy for the looters because they have no alternative means of economic gain (e.g.,
“subsistence digging”) and are therefore victimized by the demand for antiquities generated
inwealthiermarketcountries,orbecauserecreationaldiggingisanestablishedculturaltradition;