Another ‘Elaborate Sting’ Out West
Posted on 05. Mar, 2011 by Shannon Graham in Archeological Excavations, Artifact Finds, Clovis, Miscellaneous, Paleo
Over the past few years we’ve seen praise on public artifact forums for professional archeologists sharing their knowledge with amateurs while studying their collections. These posts from a New Mexico collector in 2007 are an example.
“In June(2006) I also had the opportunity to work with a couple of professionals. I hosted Dan Amick from Loyola – a noted Folsom archaeologist and Tom Loebel of UIC – a former student of Dan’s and a recent PHD graduate whose focus is Clovis – for a week of study and recording of Paleo artifacts”
And…
Fast forward four years to last week to see the Loyola archaeologist Dan Amick pleading guilty to violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) by removing archaeological resources from federal public lands. (U.S. Department of Justice News Release)
A news release from United States Attorney Kenneth Gonzales states that during a summer field trip in 2007 Amick ‘and his cohorts removed approximately 12 archaeological artifacts’ and removed five more in a second trip. One of the ‘cohorts’ identified is the author of the comments above, Don Musser. The other is listed as Scott Clendenin of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.
The investigation originated from a 2006 informant’s tip (which is around the same time Dan Amick and Tom Loebel are reported above to have visited Don Musser) where the informant said Clendenin ‘is surface collecting Paleolithic projectile points and associated lithic artifacts…”.
A 47 page affidavit states Amick provided Clendenin with a Global Positioning System device ‘to document the specific location of Paleolithic artifacts Clendinin surface collects on behalf of Amick.’ Clendenin was collecting the points ‘in support of research being conducted by Dr. Daniel S. Amick.” The BLM informant wore a body wire and recorded an agreement made between Amick and Clendenin that allowed Clendenin to keep the artifacts.
Douglas McNabb, the Federal defense attorney representing Amick told the Chicago Tribune, “the judge is saying that Dr. Amick made a mistake. Because it was associated with research….he agreed to drop the charges. ….He won’t have a record.”
That’s good news for Amick; no criminal record and we’ll see if he maintains his position at the university. What about his ‘cohort’s, the one that Amick allegedly outfitted with a GPS device and enlisted to collect research?
Not sure we’ll ever know the full truth behind this sting but you can bet there will be consequences.
For a better look, see New West’s feature ‘The Professor Who Stole Ancient New Mexico Artifacts’.
Join the discussion in the Arrowheadology forums here.
Related Posts
3 Responses to “Another ‘Elaborate Sting’ Out West”
Leave a Reply
Richard Michael Gramly
27. Mar, 2011
There is a clear distinction to be made between objects lying upon the surface and others below the surface. If all the objects collected from public lands lay exposed upon the surface and were open to damage by livestock, frost, and other “natural” agencies, then we should thank Amick and his friends for salvaging them and being systematic about it. Disturbing intact deposits containing artifacts is entirely another matter and cannot be condoned. We are unsure from the text of this article if the artifacts in question were above or below surface.
Selling any of those specimens on eBay is a bad business; however, Prof. Amick did not sell them — we are told.
Colby Phillips
14. Apr, 2011
The laws and rules about artifact collecting on public lands apply to all cultural materials — those buried as well as those lying on the surface. It is a slippery slope to try and make distinctions — an artifact shallowlly buried in an arroyo might be uncovered by the next rain storm and become a surface artifact, so why not just take it now? The potential destruction of artifacts by natural causes (weather, animals, etc.) is just part of the archaelogical record and natural site formation processes — this is Archy 101 stuff. Claiming that the artifacts are being “rescued” for the purpose of research doesn’t make it any less illegal — the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Dr. Amick should have followed research protocols through the appropriate land management agencies to conduct his research, and he probably wishes he had now. This is a sensitive topic in the field of archaeology, and professionals such as Dr. Amick, particularly those who are teaching about issues such as archaeological ethics, have no room to stray.
dannyb278
14. Feb, 2012
the artifat itself is WORTHESS to science if removed from its context. trying to “save” artifacts by removing them without recording the site context render the artifact pointless. Saying you are ’saving” artifacts from natural process is a excuse for relic hunting which has no buisness in archaeology.