The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study Cheryl Ann Munson

30 Pages·2007·0.78 MB·English

TheGEMound:AnARPACaseStudy
CherylAnnMunson;MarjorieMelvinJones;RobertE.Fry
AmericanAntiquity,Vol.60,No.1.(Jan.,1995),pp.131-159.
StableURL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28199501%2960%3A1%3C131%3ATGMAAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
AmericanAntiquityiscurrentlypublishedbySocietyforAmericanArchaeology.
YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceofJSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUse,availableat
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html.JSTOR'sTermsandConditionsofUseprovides,inpart,thatunlessyouhaveobtained
priorpermission,youmaynotdownloadanentireissueofajournalormultiplecopiesofarticles,andyoumayusecontentin
theJSTORarchiveonlyforyourpersonal,non-commercialuse.
Pleasecontactthepublisherregardinganyfurtheruseofthiswork.Publishercontactinformationmaybeobtainedat
http://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.html.
EachcopyofanypartofaJSTORtransmissionmustcontainthesamecopyrightnoticethatappearsonthescreenorprinted
pageofsuchtransmission.
TheJSTORArchiveisatrusteddigitalrepositoryprovidingforlong-termpreservationandaccesstoleadingacademic
journalsandscholarlyliteraturefromaroundtheworld.TheArchiveissupportedbylibraries,scholarlysocieties,publishers,
andfoundations.ItisaninitiativeofJSTOR,anot-for-profitorganizationwithamissiontohelpthescholarlycommunitytake
advantageofadvancesintechnology.FormoreinformationregardingJSTOR,[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
TueNov2717:11:182007
THE GE MOUND: AN ARPA CASE STUDY
Cheryl Ann Munson, Marjorie Melvin Jones, and Robert E. Fry
Prosecutions oflooters under the CJ.S.Government'sArcheological Resources Protection Act JARPA)have heretofore
come in cases involvingfederal or Indian land, thus limitrng applications of the larr' and questions about both the
larr' and the legal rights of artifact collectors. In this essay we examine the GE Mound case, thefirst prosecution and
conviction of a group of looters under ARPA4forinterstate transport ofartifacts illegally removedfrom prrvatepropertv.
The GE :Wound case serves as a textbook on issues that currently confront archaeology. The conflicting interests of
archaeologists, looters, other artifact collectors, and Kative Americans are illustrated in the legal proceedings and the
controversies surrounding the prosecution. UP review the proceedings and controversies to establish a factual record
for this precedent-setting and politic all^^ sensrtive case.
Hasta ahora el gobierno de 10s Estados CTnidosha perseguido legalmente a 10s saqueadores de sitios arqueolbgicos
descubiertos en terrenos federales o territorios de tribus indias conforme a ley federal de Proteccibn de Recursos
.Irqueolbgicos JARPA).Por eso no ha.v precedente para casos que irnpliquen 10s derechos legales de coleccionistas de
arrefactos encontrados en terrenos particulares En este ensavo examinamos el caso del saqueo del ttimulo de la
cor?lpafiiaGeneral Electric IGE). Es el primer fallo bajo ilRP,4 contra un grupo de saqueadores que transportaron
de un estado a otros artefactos e~cavadosilegalmente de propiedad particular. El caso del ttimulo de GE nos sirve
cor?loejemplo excelente de /as complejidades que la arqueologfa actual tiene que arbordar. Las actas legales y las
polPrnicas alrededor del litigio ilustran el choque de intereses entre arquedlogos, saqueadores, coleccionistas y nativos
americanos. Revisamos /as actas para aclarar hechos y corregir malas interpretaciones sobre un caso pol6mico que
sentd precedentes legales.
I
n November 1992 Judge Gene E. Brooks, first under ARPA's prohibition against in-
U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana, terstate trafficking in archaeological resources
sentenced the last of five men charged in the obtained in violation of state or local laws.
looting of the GE Mound, a Middle Wood- The U.S. Court of Appeals issued a strong
land Hopewell mound at the Mt. Vernon site answer to questions concerning the interpre-
(12P0885) in Posey County, Indiana. The tation and constitutionality of this ARPA
convictions in the GE Mound case led to a provision, and the U.S. Supreme Court de-
precedent-setting case under the Archeolog- clined to consider the matter further.
ical Resources Protection Act (ARPA: Public This one case also illustrates the intercon-
Law 96-95: 93 Statute 72 1: 16 U.S.C. 470aa- nections among some of the difficult current
mm. as amended). These convictions are the issues in American archaeology: reburial and
Cheryl Ann Munson Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-3780
Marjorie Melvin Jones rn Department of Sociology-Anthropology, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN
47712
Robert E. Fry Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN 47907-1365
American Antiquity, 60(1), 1995, pp. 131-159.
Copyright C 1995 by the Society for Arnencan Archaeology
132 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 60, No. 1, 19951
the beliefs of Native Americans. state and those emanating from the "worldview" of ar-
federal legislation to protect and regulate use tifact collectors. We believe that archaeolo-
of archaeological resources. the mispercep- gists concerned with site protection should
tions of artifact collectors about what ARPA have knowledge of the artifact collecting
means for the pursuit of their hobby. the community.' for looters and other artifact
proper roles of private-property owners con- collectors have both political clout and fi-
cerning archaeological resources. the propri- nancial backing to support their interests. In
ety of "secret science" involving archaeolog- order to answer the many questions about
ical materials that will not be available for the GE Mound case that have been raised by
further analysis. and the archaeologists' in- professional and avocational archaeologists
terests in the long-term preservation of the and collectors. as well as by government of-
remaining portion of the site and the spec- ficials, our discussion will also address the
tacular array of materials recovered from the judicial appeals. the efforts made to sway
mounds' looters. public opinion about ARPA. and the dis-
As participant observers in the events fol- position of the site and artifacts.
lowing the looting, we have knowledge of the
course of the judicial proceedings and the
The Looting and the Violation
depth of misrepresentations about the nature
of ARPA
of the offenses and about ARPA. Misrepre-
sentations are being spread verbally and have The U.S. Congress passed ARPA in 1979, in
appeared in publications of various organi- response to the 1974 decision of the Ninth
zations and the popular news media. News- Circuit Court ofAppeals in the case of L7nited
letters, magazines. and journals include not Srures \,. Diaz. which found the U.S. Antiqu-
just those widely read by artifact collectors ities Act of 1906 to be unconstitutionally
throughout the United States. but also those vague (Hutt et al. 1992:23-25). Unlike some
read by professional and avocational archae- other nations where identified archaeological
ologists. Our review of collectors' publica- resources on privately owned land become
tions and other sources written in recent years the property of the state. neither ARPA nor
has made it clear that there is a concerted other federal laws regulate the excavation or
effort to organize and finance campaigns to collection of privately owned archaeological
inhibit laws criminalizing looting and to sup- resources. Instead, such regulations are left
port some of those arrested for archaeological to the jurisdiction of the states. ARPA spe-
crimes. Growing from this context are ap- cifically prohibits interstate or foreign traffic
peals to Congress from collectors about ARPA in illegally obtained artifacts. but it does not
and the GE Mound case. make reference to private lands. ARPA is a
The legal significance of the case and con- relatively new law, many archaeologists are
troversies engendered by the looting and not familiar with its provisions, and prose-
prosecution have import throughout the cutions have been limited relative to the
countn and more generally for concerns about number of reported looting incidents (Car-
archaeological ethics.' Our purpose here is to nett 199 l : McAllister 199 l). With a few ex-
outline the facts ofthe case to dispel the grow- ceptions, ARPA prosecutions ha\.e taken
ing confusion and disinformation that is hav- place in western states. and until the GE
ing the unfortunate result of alienating some Mound case, prosecutions were for violations
avocational archaeologists from the profes- occurring on federal or Indian lands.
sional community. We will describe the According to documents on the GE Mound
ARPA violations, the investigation and legal case filed in U.S. District Court for Southern
proceedings in the case, and the significance Indiana. Evansville Division (USDC) (USDC
of the GE Mound site. Then we will review EV-90-32-Cr, EV-9 1-12-Cr. EV-9 1-19-Cr.
the issues raised during sentencing, including EV-9 1- 20-Cr. EV-9 1-2 1- Cr, EV-92- 14-Cr).
FORUM 133
the looting took place in June, July, and Au- ical resource protection in the eastern United
gust 1988 at a Hopewell mound located on States, where only a small percentage of land
the General Electric Company's property, at is in public ownership, and few states have
its plastics manufacturing plant near Mt. laws designed to protect archaeological re-
Vernon, Indiana. The property consists of a sources on private lands. In Indiana. for ex-
large area encompassing terraces and hills ample, only three percent of the land is pub-
overlooking the Ohio River. The looting of licly owned. However. in Indiana as
the mound site followed by only a few months elsewhere, people not only take artifacts across
the widely publicized looting at the Slack state lines to sell, but travel out-of-state t~
Farm site, located just across the Ohio River acquire them from archaeological sites and
in Kentucky and also privately owned (Pol- at "Indian relic" shows or sales. The profits
lack et al. 1988). from the commerce in artifacts are a primary
Artifacts from the GE Mound initially were motive for pothunting (McAllister 199 1;
unearthed bq heavy equipment during the Meyer 1977). The annual "Owensboro In-
borrowing of soil for an adjacent construction dian Art and Artifact Show" in Kentucky, for
project involving a new road. That project instance, boasts 300 tables and several thou-
was supported by federal funds. The borrow sand visitors every year (Indian Artifact
pit location had been surveyed by a profes- AWagazine1 993); in past years, archaeologists
sional archaeologist using the standard pro- monitoring the show have noted antiquities
cedure of shovel probes aligned on a grid, but for sale not only from the eastern and western
not until after some earthmoving at the United States. but from Mesoamerica and
mound had taken place.3 Evidence of the ar- South America as well. By one estimate (King
tificial nature of the mound was not found 199 1:86) worldwide trade in artifacts is a bil-
during that ~urveyI.n~ t he report to the con- lion-dollar-a-year business.
struction company, the consulting archaeol-
ogist recommended that ifartifacts were found
The Initial Investigation and

during borrow work. an archaeologist with
Legal Proceedings

the state Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology should be contacted im- In 1988 and 1989 state and local law enforce-
mediately. The federal project permit also ment made the initial criminal investigation
specified such notifications. When artifacts of the looting and removal of artifacts
were subsequently uncovered, no one noti- from the GE Mound in response to anony-
fied either state authorities or the landowner, mous reports of possible violations of state
and looting followed. Looters came onto law (Munson and Pollack 199 1). Several tips,
General Electric's property to dig and remove in fact, came from artifact collectors who were
artifacts without the company's permission, knowledgeable about artifact types and chert
thereby violating state trespass and theft laws. types and appreciated something of the sig-
Some artifacts were taken to other states in nificance of the materials taken. Some people
violation of ARPA, which states: made reports because they deplored the way
looters were treating the artifacts.
No person may sell, purchase, exchange, transport,
The looted site was identified and con-
receive, or offer to sell, purchase, or exchange, in inter-
firmed through test excavations directed by
state or foreign commerce, any archaeological re-
sources excavated, removed, sold, purchased, ex- Curtis Tomak (1 990), archaeologist with the
changed, transported or received in violation of an.v Indiana Department of Highways; testing in-
provision, rule, regulation, ordinance, or permit in volved seven units, each comprising 2.3 m2,
effect under State or locallaw [16 U.S.C. Sec. 470ee(c);
plus excavation of the fill of a hole dug by
emphasis added].
the looters. The U.S. Department of Justice
ARPA's provision against interstate traf- began its investigation after Ray White, the
ficking is especially relevant for archaeolog- late chief of the Miami Nation of Indiana,
134 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 60, No. 1, 1995)
expressed concern about the possibility of Admissions of ARPA Crimes, Plea

looted artifacts from the GE Mound being Bargains, and Sentences

sold in other states. The news media soon
learned that the looting of a large mound had The sentencing hearings were held in July and
occurred. and the case took on a higher pro- November 1992. The first sentencing hear-
file. Professional archaeologists provided in- ing, in the case of the L7.S.c. Arthur Joseph
formation and advice to General Electric and Gerber, was a day-long presentation during
to local. state, and federal law enforcement which the admitted roles of looters were laid
officials. From the beginning a major focus out and the archaeological significance of the
of the investigation was the recovery of ar- site was covered in extensive testimony by
chaeological materials and contextual infor- an expert witness. Each of the five defendants
mation. Other Native Americans in the re- pleaded guilty to ARPA violations. following
gion also urged investigations to identify and a series of grand jury indictments and sub-
punish the culprits and to recover the looted sequent plea bargains.
artifacts for museum displays and public ed- 1. John William Way (USDC EV-90-32-
ucation. General Electric officials pledged full Cr, 9 1- 13-Cr). an artifact collector and heavy
cooperation in the investigations and took equipment operator from Illinois, first dis-
initial steps to preserve and secure the site. covered artifacts in the GE Mound in the
already planted in grass, by installing fencing course of borrowing dirt for the road con-
and motion detectors. struction project. He admitted that he did not
First arrested was an Indiana man who had report the discovery to his superiors, who
stolen artifacts from the mound but had not were required to inform state highway con-
taken them across state lines. Kirby Wilson struction authorities of any archaeological
was charged with trespass. but not ARPA materials uncovered during the project. Way
violations. He agreed to cooperate with the took artifacts across state lines to his home
authorities, to return the artifacts in his pos- and contacted Gerber, a well-known artifact
session, to perform community service. and collector from Indiana and organizer of one
to be interviewed by archaeologist James of the largest Indian artifact shows and sales
Kellar (professor emeritus, Indiana Univer- in the United States, the annual "Indian Relic
sity) about the site. Then, under the direction Show of Shows" in Owensboro. Kentucky.
of Special Agent James Beck ofthe Evansville Way sold GE Mound artifacts to Gerber for
office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation $6,000 cash and took him to the site on two
(FBI) publicly solicited the cooperation of occasions.
others who knew about the looting. As a re- Following his indictment in May 1990, Way
sult, several thousand artifacts eventually petitioned the court to dismiss the case against
were turned over to federal authorities. Kel- him on the grounds that ARPA did not apply
lar made the initial inventory of the recov- to artifacts taken from private land and that
ered materials. the statute is overly broad and vague. The
Over the ensuing two and one-half years. judge denied the motion. In his plea bargain
information was obtained by the office of the on one misdemeanor count. Way agreed in
U.S. Attorney. Southern District of Indiana. March 199 1 to cooperate in the investigation
to win convictions of five men for violations and to amend his 1988 income tax return to
of ARPA's interstate trafficking provision. reflect Gerber's payments. Way's sentence was
Throughout the legal proceedings, the public 30 days' work release. a $2,000 fine. and two
was kept informed by U.S. Attorney Deborah years' probation.
Daniels. Chief of the Criminal Division Larry 2. and 3. John D. Towery (USDC EV-91-
Mackey, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott 2 l -Cr) and Danny G. Glover (USDC EV-9 1-
Newman, who issued news releases and held 20-Cr). both from Kentucky, were recruited
press interviews. by Gerber to help him dig and to share in
FORUM 135
what they found. They met Gerber and drove ditional count of illegal transport, and unlaw-
to Way's home, and then all four men went ful commercial sale. He also admitted to all
to the GE Mound. Way showed them where facts listed in the charge of conspiracy to pur-
he expected the largest concentration of ar- chase and sell unlawfully removed archaeo-
tifacts would be found and helped them dig. logical resources. These facts include know-
Towery, Glover, and Gerber returned on sev- ing trespass upon private property belonging
eral occasions until a General Electric Plastics to General Electric and violations of the In-
plant security guard ordered them off the site. diana criminal conversion statute, recruiting
The men agreed to initially store the artifacts others to join him in looting, refusing to sur-
at Towery's home in Kentucky. Some of the render subpoenaed photographs of the loot-
artifacts were sold at Gerber's 1988 Indian ing to the grand jury, and attempting to per-
artifact show and the proceeds divided among suade others not to cooperate with law
them. Then, Gerber and Towery bought out enforcement authorities.
Glover's remaining interest and split the As part of his plea agreement, Gerber agreed
"loot," with Gerber taking his share to In- to surrender the GE Mound artifacts he kept
diana. Towery later sold his portion to Ger- in safe deposit boxes and a heavily alarmed
ber in exchange for $2,000 cash and artifacts personal vault building, to relinquish pho-
from another site that Gerber had in his col- tographs taken at the site, to pay $4,750 to
lections. Towery and Glover were indicted get back the forfeited vehicles, to submit a
in July 199 1. verified financial statement, and to testify be-
Towery pleaded guilty to one misdemean- fore the grand jury. The government conced-
or count and Gloe~r to one felony count un- ed in this agreement that Gerber reserved his
der ARPA at a hearing held December 199 1. right of appeal. The government made this
The monetary value of the artifacts deter- concession because "[olnly the published re-
mines the level of violation. They acknowl- sults of cases that are brought forward on
edged that they knowingly had trespassed on appeal to the circuit courts of appeal or the
General Electric's property and removed the Supreme Court may be used as precedence
artifacts without permission of the property standards" (Hutt et al. 1992:73). Gerber's
owner, and they agreed to testify about the sentence for five misdemeanor ARPA vio-
in\olvement of others. Both also agreed to lations was 12 months in prison on each
amend their income tax returns. Towery's count. terms to run concurrently; supervised
sentence was 60 days' work release. a fine in release for three years during which he cannot
the range of $1,000 to $10,000, which was engage directly or indirectly in the sale (ex-
waived because of inability to pay. and two cept as noted below), purchase, barter. or ex-
years' probation. Glo\ er's sentence was 180 cavation of any archaeological resources or
days' work release, a fine waived because of sponsor, organize, or attend artifact shows or
inability to pay, and two years' probation. exhibits: and a $5,000 fine, which he is al-
4. Arthur J. Gerber (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr), lowed to meet by selling artifacts lawfully in
a commercial photographer from Tell City, his possession. The fine is in addition to the
Indlana, was also indicted in July 199 1. Fed- amount Gerber paid to recover his confis-
eral authorities confiscated his two vehicles cated vehicles. The sentence was stayed while
used in transporting the GE Mound artifacts. Gerber appealed his conviction, and there-
Gerber's attorney raised the same constitu- fore he was not prevented from sponsoring
tional issues as Way's attorney, but Judge or promoting the annual Indian relic show in
Brooks denied this motion as well. In April Owensboro, Kentucky (Indian Artifact Mag-
1992, Gerber conceded his role in a plea bar- azine 1993) until after the a~peal.~
gain and admitted guilt to three counts of 5. Randall R. Hansen (USDC EV-92-14).
purchase and transport of unlawfully re- a local businessman and long-time collector
moved artifacts from the GE Mound, an ad- of prehistoric Indian artifacts, is famous in
136 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 60, No. 1, 19951
the region for carrying a business card that vations from deposits disturbed by looters;
reads "Have Shovel, Will Travel." He dug based on her findings, the mound held in-
on the GE site on several occasions from late humations of at least two individuals plus
June to August. In one of the photographs cremated human remains (Seeman 1992: U.S.
taken by Gerber and later obtained by federal Department of Justice 1992:4-5). The site
authorities. Hansen is shown at the GE has been linked to the Mann phase, A.D.
Mound holding up a quartz crystal blade. 100-500, on the basis of temporally sensitive
Hansen went to the Way residence in Illinois artifacts (Ruby 1993:34), and it has been de-
where he spoke to Mrs. Way and offered to termined eligible to be listed in the National
buy GE Mound artifacts from her husband Register of Historic Places. according to the
or to trade equipment or drugs for them. He Indiana State Historic Preservation Office
also contacted employees of the borrow pit (SHPO).
contractor to offer cash, guns. knives, or other Seeman was able to examine most of the
property for artifacts they found. Hansen ad- recovered artifacts. He also visited the site,
mitted taking the GE Mound artifacts he took interviewed the looters, and consulted with
from the site to the Central States Archaeo- General Electric officials about the nature of
logical Show at the Kentucky Dam Village the site and earthmoving operations. He drew
State Park resort in October 1988. where he from knowledge of such well-known Hope-
offered to sell the collection for $20,000. well sites as Turner and the Hopewell site in
Hansen pleaded guilty in July 1992 to two Ohio for his assessment: "It is becoming in-
misdemeanor counts of violating ARPA and creasingly clear that sites like the GE Mound
agreed to return artifacts he had taken from actually served as the focus for a variety of
the site. Hansen's sentence was four months' ceremonial and social functions. . . . [Tlhe ar-
nonelectronic home detention. two years' tifacts were among the more finely crafted
probation on each count with concurrent products of the prehistoric period. Further,
terms, and a $5,000 fine. the presence of ornate artifacts made of un-
carbonized leather and wood suggests that the
preservation of normally perishable organic
The Significance of the GE Mound
materials was unusually good. . . . Very few
At the request of the U.S. Attorney, Mark Hopewell mounds have produced more ar-
Seeman, archaeologist and professor of an- tifactual materials" (Seeman 1992: 17-3 1).
thropology at Kent State University in Ohio. The recovered artifacts included three cop-
prepared an assessment of the age. affiliation, per panpipes (two silver covered), 23 copper
and significance of the GE Mound and tes- celts (one weighing 6 kg). copper nuggets.
tified for the government at Gerber's sen- copper pins, copper breastplates (one em-
tencing hearing. The prosecutors requested bossed with silver), 13 copper ear spools (8
his testimony as a widely recognized author- silver covered), silver hemispheres, a silver
ity on Hopewell. According to Seeman. the carnassial effigy. more than 2,000 bifaces of
site is approximately 2.000 years old, and the local and exotic cherts. Ross-barbed spear
mound is "one of the very largest Hopewell points of obsidian and coal, quartz crystal
mounds ever constructed" (USDC U.S. v. spear points. mica, freshwater pearls, shell
Arthur J. Gerber, EV-9 1- 19-Cr:Tran- beads. bear canine ornaments, cut and pol-
script[T]: 17). Based on estimated dimen- ished human mandibles ("trophy jaws"). bone
sions. Seeman (1 994) later noted that the loaf- pins. pieces of wooden objects. tooled leather
shaped mound's construction would have re- adornos, and pieces of leather and cloth (See-
quired about 166,000 to 290,000 bushel bas- man 1992. 1994).
ket loads of earth. Della Cook. physical an- Our understanding of the Hopewell phe-
thropologist at Indiana University, analyzed nomenon has been changed significantly by
human remains recovered during test exca- the recovery of artifacts from the looters (See-
FORUM 137
man 1994), especially when combined with of preservation in the region; the normal fate
what is known of the nearby Mann site (Kel- of any organic artifacts in the acid soils and
lar 1979). As Seeman writes in a letter pre- temperate climate is rapid disintegration.
sented to a meeting of the Native American Additionally, metal artifacts of copper and
Council (NAC) in Indiana: "The importance silver quickly oxidize. Perhaps the organic
of the GE Mound materials to the under- and metal artifacts had some particular place-
standing of Native American society in pre- ment in a tomb or special cache pit contain-
historic Indiana is very great. This is not just ing soils or some substance having a preser-
another Hopewell Mound. Ceremonial sites vative effect. Unfortunately, the destruction
of the size and complexity of GE are rare; of the context of these materials makes it
indeed, nothing like it has ever been found impossible to know what particular condi-
in Indiana" (letter from M. F. Seeman to tions were responsible for their preservation.
NAC, November 9, 1992: Division of His-
toric Preservation and Archaeology, India- Other Issues at Gerber's

napolis). Sentencing Hearing

In Seeman's court testimony he responded
Gerber's sentencing hearing was widel) cov-
to questions about the archaeological value
ered by the regional news media. The packed
of the GE Mound and what might have been
court room looked much like a wedding, with
its fate had state authorities and federal high-
many in attendance choosing to sit on the left
way officials been notified about the site. In
side of the room behind the prosecution or
many ARPA prosecutions, the value of ar-
the right side behind the defense. Both the
chaeological resources is commonly calcu-
prosecution and defense presented expert
lated in terms of the cost of conducting ex-
witnesses, similar to a trial. although the issue
cavation and analysis, rather than the "market
at hand was an appropriate sentence because
value" of artifacts (Hutt et al. 1992:65). In
Gerber had agreed to a guilty plea. Seeman,
answering questions posed by the defense at-
the only witness for the prosecution, sum-
torney and the judge, Seeman estimated that
marized his written report and illustrated his
the cost of an archaeological investigation of
testimony with slides and examples of the
the GE Mound would have been in the neigh-
recovered artifacts. After the government
borhood of one million dollars, based on cur-
completed its presentation, eight witnesses
rent costs for mound excavation, the extent
testified on Gerber's behalf. Richard Michael
and complexity of the deposits, and the array
Gramly, archaeologist and former curator at
of materials deposited in the mound. He also
the Buffalo Museum of Science and current
stated that preserving rather than immedi-
owner and curator of the new private "Great
ately excavating the site ensures that it re-
Lakes Artifact Repository" (Gramly 1993),
mains a part of our heritage. Seeman con-
testified for Gerber as an expert witness and
cluded that the decision of state authorities
disagreed with various aspects of Seeman's
about the excavation of a site such as the GE
assessment. The examination of Gerber's
Mound would be a political one because Na-
witnesses brought out a series of points that
ti\/e Americans might object strongly to the
have been reiterated widely in print and
excavation of a ceremonial site (USDC EV-
sometimes misconstrued.
9 1-19-Cr:T:48-53).
The discovery of organic artifacts includ-
.StUte U'as
ing fabric, leather, reeds in panpipes, and
wood is highly unusual. In some cases, these Gramly asserted in his written statement for
fragile materials had remarkable associa- the court that the Indiana SHPO was "re-
tions. for instance what appeared to be pearl- sponsible. . . for not protecting the Mount
studded leather wrapped around a copper celt. Vernon [GE Mound] site from serious harm"
We know of no other comparable examples (Gramly 1992x8). He also claimed that the
138 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 60, No. 1, 19951
"destruction was known to various people dedicated to the preservation of the artifacts"
holding responsible offices, including senior (USDC EV-9 1- 19-Cr:T:1 44). Even months
staff members of the Division of Historic after the sentencing, Gramly wrote in a letter
Preservation and Archaeology [the Indiana to the editor of a regional newspaper: "I feel
SHPO office]" (Gramly 1992a: 12). In cross that Gerber was shocked at the destruction
examination by the U.S. Attorney. Gramly he observed and wanted to save objects for
admitted to making assumptions about what posterity" (Gramly 1992b).
state officials might have known without any Seeman interviewed Towen and Glover
evidence to support those assumptions. The about the methods used in doing "recovery
U.S. Attorney also elicited from Gramly in- archaeology" at the GE Mound and conclud-
formation on several points. which may give ed: "[Tlhe preservation of normally perish-
perspective to his testimony in support of able organic materials was unusually good at
Gerber. Gramly answered that he has bought the site. but trying to remove them with she\--
and sold artifacts, is a sales representative for els and knives physically destroys them. . . .
Indiatz Artifact itfagazine. and sets up booths Towery. in fact, told me that many fragile
at relic shows to sell the magazine and books artifacts, such as pearls and bear canine or-
(USDC EV-9 1- 19-Cr:T:1 8 1-1 86). He ex- naments. were simply ignored if they ap-
plained that he did not renew his member- peared damaged, as he. Glover. and Gerber
ship in the Society for American Archaeology searched for 'better' artifacts. . . . The repair
(SAA) when he became curator of the mu- of a bear canine ornament with a bone dowel
seum because "It says quite clearly in the By- or the careful wrapping of an unused copper
Laws of the Society of American Archaeology celt in a finely woven cloth [some examples
that transacting artifacts is not permitted" of GE Mound artifacts] are details of a story
(USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T: 187). that never will be fully told" (Seeman 1992:
27-28).
If Gerber were truly shocked and wanted
"Recovery A~chaeolog?,"
to stop further damage from construction and
Other men who testified for Gerber included from the preceding looters. we believe he
artifact collectors and dealers. Most of these would have notified state officials or any one
witnesses think of themselves as amateur or of the archaeologists at state agencies or uni-
avocational archaeologists. One collector de- versities, some of whom he knows person-
scribed the "archaeological conlmunity" as ally. In his public statements made before he
being made up of archaeologists. dealers, and went to the GE Mound. Gerber showed that
collectors (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T:1 4 1). The he was aware of state and federal require-
testimony for the defense attempted to por- ments concerning archaeological resource
tray Gerber as a highly respected artifact col- protection for highway construction projects,
lector who follows traditional practices, rath- but dismissed them: "[Tlhen they [archae-
er than a dealer. The witnesses downplayed ologists] take the objects [artifacts] and may-
the significance of admitted trespassing on be put them in the basement of some uni-
private property to obtain artifacts and treat- versity. . . . We'll never see them again"
ed the illegal digging at the GE Mound as (television interview cited in Brief of Plain-
"artifact collecting" and "preservation." tiff-Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals [USCA],
One witness stated: "I think Art [Gerber] Seventh Circuit. Cause No. 92-2741:20).
was really doing recovery archaeology" Gerber also could have contacted reporters
(USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T:1 10). Another arti- for either local and national news media who
fact collector, a member of the Ohio Ar- were covering the looting issue in the summer
chaeological Society. said Gerber has a col- of 1988. or state legislators then working to
lecting philosophy "of the old time draft legislation to protect archaeological re-
collectors. . . . Those collectors were truly sources in Indiana, if he had wanted to stop
FORUM 139
the looting. Instead, Gerber was speaking to much worse than speeding down 1-64''
the news media and to legislative committees (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T: 108).
shortly before the looting at the GE Mound Gramly also responded to questions about
to defend artifact collectors in general and trespassing by people who wish to obtain ar-
the Slack Farm site diggers in particular. Ger- tifacts, noting: "I have to ask for permis-
ber continued to promote artifact collecting sion. . . . Now, I wouldn't apply my sort of
and oppose laws against looting even after professional behavior to the behavior of am-
the looting at the GE Mound was discovered. ateurs and collectors. I don't consider it [tres-
In fact, he testified with Hansen and others passing] wrong. I consider it wrong if you are
in legislative hearings against bills that would told to get off the land and don't get off. That
make what the defendants did at the GE is wrong" (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T: 185).
Mound a felon) under Indiana law. Hansen, who just the previous day pleaded
Though some archaeologists recently have guilty to his role in the GE Mound looting,
recognized that looters may have diverse per- used a similar argument to justify digging on
spectives and behaviors (Harrington 199 I), General Electric property (USDC EV-9 1-19-
the worldview of the GE Mound looters and Cr:T: 1 17-1 38). He claimed to have been seen
their supporters seems to be common else- by individuals he assumed to be security
where. In Arkansas, for example, looters be- guards. Because these people did not im-
lie\e it is they, not archaeologists. who ap- mediately order him or others off the borrow
preciate and preserve prehistoric Indian work area on the mound. he decided that he
cultures for the public, while archaeologists had the permission of General Electric to dig.
hide collections from public view in store- The proceedings make it clear that looters
rooms: according to these looters, their focus spent time from mid-July to August 1988
on "saving" whole, beautiful objects from collecting and digging into the mound with-
perceived destruction either by nature or man out permission from its owners. They kept
is their justification for ignoring archaeolog- their activities secret from anyone who could
ical context (Early 1989). have put a halt to the ongoing destruction,
quitting only when General Electric security
guards ordered them off the site. Further ev-
Standard Operating Procedure on Private
idence that they were not saving artifacts for
Property
posterit), let alone the undisturbed portions
The issue of trespass by people obtaining ar- of the site, is clear from their sales of some
tifacts from private property was explored of the artifacts. beginning at Gerber's artifact
more fully by Gerber's attorney. who ques- show in Owensboro only a few days after the
tioned the vice president of the Indiana Ar- security guards stopped the looting.
chaeological Society. an organization sup-
ported by artifact collectors. The witness said:
Gerber on the Stand
"Well. a no trespassing sign is sort of a warn-
ing, but the way it is used many times in rural Gerber took the stand with his lawyer leading
areas, it doesn't mean anything" (USDC EV- him through his view of the facts in the case.
91-19-Cr:T:B1 15). Another person testifying Gerber explained that other artifact collec-
for Gerber was asked to consider that Gerber tors had preceded him at the site. which
had previously pleaded guilty to trespass in "looked like a bombed out battle zone"
two other cases that also involved digging for (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T:20 1) when he got
artifacts on private property. When asked there to dig. He admitted that he sold other
whether he approved of such actions, he re- artifacts from the GE Mound at several ar-
sponded "Collecting is not, in my view. a tifact shows in Kentucky and Indiana. He
crime" (USDC EV-9 1-19-Cr:T:102). He fur- also admitted that he destroyed photographic
ther told the court that "trespassing is not evidence because it would incriminate him.