Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:33:34.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cheryl Ann Munson ,
Marjorie Melvin Jones  and
Robert E. Fry
Cheryl Ann Munson
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-3780
Marjorie Melvin Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology-Anthropology, University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN 47712
Robert E. Fry
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907–1365
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prosecutions of looters under the U.S. Government's Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) have heretofore come in cases involving federal or Indian land, thus limiting applications of the law and questions about both the law and the legal rights of artifact collectors. In this essay we examine the GE Mound case, the first prosecution and conviction of a group of looters under ARPA for interstate transport of artifacts illegally removed from private property. The GE Mound case serves as a textbook on issues that currently confront archaeology. The conflicting interests of archaeologists, looters, other artifact collectors, and Native Americans are illustrated in the legal proceedings and the controversies surrounding the prosecution. We review the proceedings and controversies to establish a factual record for this precedent-setting and politically sensitive case.

Resumen

Resumen

Hasta ahora el gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha perseguido legalmente a los saqueadores de sitios arqueológicos descubiertos en terrenos federales o territorios de tribus indias conforme a ley federal de Protección de Recursos Arqueológicos (ARPA). Por eso no hay precedente para casos que impliquen los derechos legales de coleccionistas de artefactos encontrados en terrenos particulares. En este ensayo examinamos el caso del saqueo del túmulo de la compañía General Electric (GE). Es el primer fallo bajo ARPA contra un grupo de saqueadores que transportaron de un estado a otros artefactos excavados ilegalmente de propiedad particular. El caso del túmulo de GE nos sirve como ejemplo excelente de las complejidades que la arqueología actual tiene que arbordar. Las actas legales y las polemicas alrededor del litigio ilustran el choque de intereses entre arqueólogos, saqueadores, coleccionistas y nativos americanos. Revisamos las actas para aclarar hechos y corregir malas interpretaciones sobre un caso polémico que sentó precedentes legales.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 131 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Advertisement 1993 Indian Artifact Auction, December 11, 1993, at 11 a. m. in Peoria, Illinois; one-page handout. On file, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological collections 1992 No Private Ownership of Archaeological Materials? ACPAC Newsletter April : 6. Whittier, California.Google Scholar
Banks, A. 1994 Surface Finds. Central States Archaeological Journal 41 : 108.Google Scholar
Browner, T. 1992 The Art Gerber Affair, The Facts. Prehistoric Antiquities Winter : 7.Google Scholar
Carnett, C. 1991 Legal Background of Archeological Resources Protection. Technical Brief No. 11. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Converse, R. N. 1992 Editorial. Ohio Archaeologist 41(1) : 70. Pleasantville, Ohio.Google Scholar
DeRegnaucourt, R. A. 1986 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Project RS-6665(1), Proposed Construction of a New Segment of County Road 850S Between Old S. R. 69 and Relocated S. R. 69 near Mt. Vernon in Posey County, Indiana. Submitted to United Consulting Engineers, Inc., Indianapolis. Copies available from the Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
DeWitte, D. 1994 Indians to Rebury Artifacts : Archaeologists’ Outcry Rejected. Evansville Courier 29 April : A8.Google Scholar
Early, A. M. 1989 Profiteers and Public Archaeology : Antiquities Trafficking in Arkansas. In The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property : Whose Culture? Whose Property?, edited by Messenger, P. M., pp. 39–50. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Evansville Courier 1992 Looting Must Stop [editorial]. 11 December : B2. Evansville, Indiana.Google Scholar
Evansville Press 1992 Artifacts Collector Case Should Serve as Warning [editorial]. 20 April : 12. Evansville, Indiana.Google Scholar
Evansville Press 1994a Gerber's Sentence to Begin Tomorrow. 23 May : 11. Evansville, Indiana.Google Scholar
Early, A. M. 1994b Native American Advisory Panel Criticizes Fast Reburial of Artifacts at GE. 9 August : 6. Evansville, Indiana.Google Scholar
Fogelman, G. L. 1992 From the Editor. Indian Artifact Magazine 11(1) : 3. Turbotville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Fogelman, G. L. 1993 Events Around the Country That Affect Archaeology, Amateur Archaeology, and Collecting. North American Archaeologist 14 : 325–332.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1993 Isn't Freedom Grand??? GE Gate, Part 1 : The Professional Culprits. National Society of Metal Detectorists News & Report 1(2) : 8–9.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1994a Art Gerber Begins Serving Sentence! National Society of Metal Detectorists News & Report 1(6) : 4. Prescott, Arizona.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1994b Smoke and Mirrors, GE Gate, Part 2 : “Now You See It, Now You Don't.” Central States Archaeological Journal 41 : 60–63. Reprinted in Indian Artifact Magazine 13(1) : 5, 47-48. Turbotville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1994c The Spiders and the Fly, GE Gate Part 3 : Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave. National Society of Metal Detectorists News & Report 1(4) : 1,6–8,17. Prescott, Arizona.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1994d Native Americans Rebury Artifacts! National Society of Metal Detectorists News & Report 1(6) : 19.Google Scholar
Gifford, J. 1994e Curtis Tomak Requests Corrections. National Society of Metal Detectorists News & Report 2(1) : 2, 22.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1992a Comments About the Mount Vernon Site, Posey Co., Indiana and Events Affecting It in 1985-1988. Cause No. EV-91-19-Cr. Copies available at U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Evansville.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1992b Gerber Doesn't Deserve Attack [letter to editor]. Evansville Courier 20 December : G3.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1992c The Gerber Case [letter]. American Committee for Preservation of Archaeological Collections (ACPAC) Newsletter November 4. Whittier, California.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1993 Artifact Repositories : Sign of the Times and Wave of the Future? Indian Artifact Magazine 12(2) : 12–13. Turbotville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Green, R. 1992 Truth About Archaeological Dig at GE Goes Unreported [letter to the editor]. Evansville Courier 7 November : A7.Google Scholar
Harrington, S. P. M. 1991 The Looting of Arkansas. Archaeology 44(3) : 23–30.Google Scholar
Harris, S. L. 1989 Journey into the Forever. Monogram 67(3) : 16–21. General Electric Company, Corporate Public Relations, Fairfield, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Herald-Times 1994 GE to Rebury Unearthed Indian Relics. 29 April : C2. Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Henry, S. L. 1993 Protecting Archeological Sites on Private Lands. U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Planning Branch, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Higginbotham, C. D. 1994 GE's “Quick and Dirty” Study of Artifacts Loses History. Evansville Courier 9 June : A11.Google Scholar
Historic New Harmony Society [newsletter] 1992 GE to Present Indian Artifacts. Winter : 1. New Harmony, Indiana.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T. L. 1991 Stewards of the Past : Preserving Arizona's Archaeological Resources Through Positive Public Involvement. In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, G. S. and Ehrenhard, J. E., pp. 253–259. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Hutt, S., Jones, E. W., and McAllister, M. E. 1992 Archeological Resource Protection. Preservation Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Indian Artifact Magazine 1985 Advertisement for Owensboro Indian Art and Artifact Show. Indian Artifact Magazine 12(2) : 15. Turbotville, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Indianapolis News 1985 Indians Rebury GE's Hoosier Artifacts. 16 May : B7. Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Indianapolis Star 1985 Back to the Earth. 17 May : C3. Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. B., and Black, G. A. 1962 Two Graves In Warrick County Indiana near Angel Site. Prehistory Research Series No. IV(I). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Kellar, J. H. 1979 The Mann Site and “Hopewell” in the Lower Wabash— Ohio Valley. In Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Brose, D. S. and Greber, N., pp. 100–107. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
King, T. F. 1991 Some Dimensions of the Pothunting Problem. In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, G. S. and Ehrenhard, J. E., pp. 83–92. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Kinney, S. 1993 Indians Organize to Educate Public, Promote Culture. Evansville Press 24 April : 5.Google Scholar
McAllister, M. E. 1991 Looting and Vandalism of Archaeological Resources on Federal and Indian Lands in the United States. In Protecting the Past, edited by Smith, G. S. and Ehrenhard, J. E., pp. 93–99. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. E. 1977 The Plundered Past : The Story of the Illegal International Traffic in Works of Art. Atheneum, New York.Google Scholar
Mitchell, N. 1992 Artifacts May Be Exhibited Next Spring. Evansville Press 10 July : 15.Google Scholar
Munson, C. A., and Pollack, D. 1991 From ARPA to ZILCH : Protection of Archaeological Sites on Private Lands. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Niederpruem, K. 1992 Artifacts Might Be Reburied : Request by Indians Raises New Questions. Indianapolis Star 18 November : 1–2.Google Scholar
Pollack, D., Munson, C. A., and Powell, M. L. 1988 Slack Farm : Archaeology of a Looted Site. SAA Bulletin 6(6) : 1–2.Google Scholar
Proske, B. 1994 Relics Reburial Won't End Study. Evansville Courier 15 May : 1.Google Scholar
Raithel, T. 1994a GE Caught in Squabble over Stolen Artifacts. Evansville Courier 26 March : A1, A3.Google Scholar
Raithel, T. 1994b Archaeologists, American Indians Make Case for Artifacts : Relics at GE Argued Before Hoosier Panel. Evansville Courier 10 May : A5. Evansville, Indiana.Google Scholar
Ruby, B. J. 1993 An Archaeological Investigation of Mann Phase Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. Reports of Investigations No. 93-18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. F. 1992 Report on the Age, Affiliation and Significance of the GE Mound (12Po885). Cause No. EV-91-19-Cr. Copies available at U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Evansville.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. F. 1994 When Words Are Not Enough : Hopewell Inter-Regionalism and the GE Mound, Posey County, Indiana. In Native American Interactions : Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Nassaney, M. S. and Sassaman, K. E.. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, in press.Google Scholar
Stafford, C. R. 1988 Archaeological Records Search, Reconnais sance, and Recommendations, Three Borrow Pit Areas on G. E. Property nearMt. Vernon, Posey County, Indiana. Anthropology Laboratory, Indiana State University, Terre Haute. Prepared for Boyd Brothers, Sesser, Illinois. Copies available from Anthropology Laboratory, Indiana State University, Terre Haute.Google Scholar
Swanson, P. 1994a GE Plans to Rebury Hopewell Artifacts : Archaeologists Clash on Fate of 3, 000 Items. Evansville Press 28 April : 1.Google Scholar
Swanson, P. 1994b Indians Rebury Looted Artifacts at GE : 3, 000 Items Placed Back in the Ground. Evansville Press 16 May : 1, 8.Google Scholar
Swanson, P. 1994c Native Americans Gather for Artifact Reburial. Evansville Press 14 May : 1.Google Scholar
Tomak, C. H. 1990 The Mount Vernon Site : A Hopewell Ceremonial/Burial Site in Posey County, Indiana. Prepared for and copies available from Division of Program Development, Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
U. S. Department of Justice 1992 News release. 17 April. Office of the U. S. Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Wolford, H. 1994 “Backroads.” 5 p. m. news report aired on May 20, and 12 noon report aired on May 23. Gilmore Productions, WEHT (CBS affiliate), Henderson, Kentucky. (From an interview with Arthur Gerber taped May 19.)Google Scholar