The Search for the Madison Tablet

The Oak Ridge Archaeological Research Institute is continuing its search for the long lost Madison Tablet and several other long lost Native American artifacts that were discovered in Tennessee.  Please read the following revised and updated story about the Madison Tablet and help us find it.  You are our eyes and ears. It has to be out there somewhere in Tennessee, the United States, or some foreign country.  Please be on the lookout for it, and send us an e-mail message at orari14@gmail.com or tcbkjbbrown@comcast.net if you know its current whereabouts or have any leads.  Thanks!!

1.0 Introduction

Sometimes prehistoric Native American artifacts go missing and are never seen again for several decades or even a century. One good example that has been missing for about 90 years is the famous Castalian Springs Tablet, also known in the Tennessee archaeological literature as the Eagle Warrior stone (Smith and Miller 2009:73). It is a flat limestone slab with a depiction of the famous birdman mythological figure incised into its surface. This stone was found on the ground surface at the Castalian Springs mound site in Castalian Springs, Tennessee, in the late 1800s, and it dates to the Mississippian period (Myer 1894:11). In the late 20th century, a lesser known but equally important incised limestone slab known as the Madison Tablet was found at a large Mississippian village site on the east side of Nashville, Tennessee. This site was known as the Haysboro site in the 19th century, but by the 1960s it was known as the Maddox site (40DV17) [Parker 1980:5-6; Parker and Parker 1982].

The Madison Tablet disappeared from the realm of Tennessee archaeology in 1994 and has not been on exhibition or available for scientific examination for the past 20 years. Its current owner, location, and preservation status are unknown. This essay tells the story of the Madison Tablet, and it kindly asks the many readers of the Archaeology in Tennessee blog to assist with finding this long-missing Tennessee artifact.

2.0 Archaeological Context of the Madison Tablet

The Madison Tablet was found in situ within a human burial on 40DV17. A Nashville artifact collector by the name of Malcolm P. Parker discovered the tablet and curated it in his private collection from the moment it was found in autumn 1968 until the date of his death in 1993, a period of 25 years (Parker 1980:5-6; Parker and Parker 1982).

This burial was a flesh inhumation, and the deceased individual had been buried on their back in a fully extended position. The skeletal remains were fully articulated, and they rested on a single limestone slab that was long enough to accommodate the entire length of an adult male corpse. Perhaps most importantly, the cranium of this individual was found resting squarely on top of the Madison Tablet, which had been used as a sort of pillow for the head at the time of inhumation. A quartzite ear plug was found near the cranium. In the midsection of the remains lay a large rim sherd from a shell-tempered pot, and a metal knife with a bone handle was present in approximately the same location (Parker 1980:5-6; Parker and Parker 1982) . Mr. Parker earnestly believed that the knife was an intentional item of burial furniture, but most archaeologists in the Nashville area have long thought that this artifact was intrusive.  Suffice it to say that it has been a matter of some controversy.

Throughout his life, Malcolm Parker was an honest man and a church-going member of several Methodist congregations. In addition, he was a close relative of mine, and I knew him better than almost anyone because he was like a second father to me throughout his long life. I was 16 years old when the Madison Tablet was found, and upon first hearing about its discovery, I immediately requested an opportunity to go to 40DV17 and see the burial in which it was found. Mr. Parker took me straight to the site that afternoon to observe the still-open burial in which it was found. This opportunity to see the burial occurred within approximately 3 days after the tablet was discovered and removed from its burial context.

Mr. John Dowd, a highly respected avocational archaeologist and a member of the Southeastern Indian Antiquities Survey (SIAS), was a friend of Mr. Parker. A number of months after discovery of the Madison Tablet, he interviewed Mr. Parker and filled out a standard field burial form for this flesh inhumation, which he officially designated as Burial 1. A copy of this burial form and other detailed information about Burial 1 are on file in my home office, and Mr. Dowd’s original SIAS burial form is on file at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology in Nashville, Tennessee.

Today a large retail store and its parking lot sit on top of the burial zone where the Madison Tablet was found, and the surrounding area has been subject to heavy development over the past 60 years. Consequently, a very large portion of the Maddox site has been destroyed, and anything that might have escaped destruction has been heavily disturbed.

As may be seen from the foregoing information, the Madison Tablet is not one of those infamous artifacts that has been tagged with a false discovery story to dupe a succession of would-be artifact buyers into thinking it is a genuine Native American artifact when it is really just a fake. Indeed, Mr. Parker never attempted to sell the Madison Tablet during his own lifetime because he had a strict personal policy of never selling or trading any artifact he had personally found in Tennessee. Unequivocally, the Madison Tablet is an actual dirt find within a human burial on a well-known Mississippian archaeological site in the Middle Cumberland region.

3.0 Description of the Madison Tablet

The Madison Tablet is a slab of native Ordivician limestone, which is a common lithic raw material in the Nashville Basin. It is a hefty stone with an irregular shape. The Madison Tablet measures 35.5 cm (14 in) × 25.4 cm (10 in.) × 7.6 cm (3 in).

At the time of its discovery, the exterior surfaces of the tablet were stained with soil minerals, giving it a somewhat mottled yellowish red color. One broad face of the tablet showed evidence of smoothing and polishing with abrading stones, but this alteration of the surface was executed unevenly because of gentle undulations in the natural surface of the limestone slab.

The obverse surface of the Madison Tablet has intricate incised images on it. No incised images are known to be present on the reverse side.

From the date it was found in 1968 until Mr. Parker died in 1993, the Madison Tablet was never photographed. The only known image of the tablet and the iconography incised into its surface is a drawing he made prior to his death. This drawing is shown in Figure 1.

 

pic1629521.jpg

Figure 1. Madison Tablet

The original drawing and the size-reduced version (Figure 1) are a bit misleading and need some clarification. Malcolm Parker was an amateur artist who preferred to draw with wide-tipped instruments such as large-lead pencils and grease pencils. This explains why the lines are so wide and distinctive in his original drawing and to a lesser degree in the size-reduced version above. Thus, the thicknesses of the lines on the original drawing and the one shown here do not accurately reflect the true widths of the incised lines on the Madison Tablet. The actual incised lines on the Madison Tablet tend to be mostly narrow and shallow like those on the Thruston Tablet, and many of them are faint.  Thus, Figure 1 is an idealized view of the overall lineation wherein all lines are portrayed as strong, wide, and distinct.

The irregularly smoothed and polished surface of the Madison tablet bears the incised images of a serpent, a lizard-like creature, and two possibly still-living herbaceous plants with long stems and narrow leaves. The lizard-like creature appears to have already removed the leaves from 14 plants, leaving only the stems, and it is weaving these stems into a lattice structure. The body of the serpent is partially obscured by the two still-living plants, but its head is poised above the tops of these plants, allowing it to observe the lizard-like creature and its lattice-building process. Two long, roughly parallel lines to the left of the lattice work appear (at first glance) to be a possible stream of water, but these lines most likely represent the rough top edge of the stone slab rather than an intentional element or motif in the overall engraved image.

4.0 Temporal Context of the Madison Tablet

The Madison Tablet was found in a human burial located among a number of stone box burials on 40DV17. This suggests that it dates to the Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000-1475) in the Middle Cumberland region (Smith and Miller 2009:38). Admittedly, the incised images on the Madison Tablet are atypical of Mississippian iconography, but one must remember that we still do not know all there is to know about regional Mississippian iconographic traditions (and certainly not those for flat stone media in the Middle Cumberland region). Another matter to consider is whether the local Mississippian culture required all incised themes to represent Mississippian mythological subject matter using only widely known Mississippian iconographic elements and motifs. Alternatively, would it have been socially and ideologically permissible to abandon standard Mississippian iconography and present an incised theme reflecting a matter of personal, site-level, or chiefdom-level significance?

Optionally, this portable tablet might date to some earlier prehistoric time period, meaning it was passed down through many generations as an important heirloom item to the Mississippian occupants of the Maddox site, or it could have been a much earlier artifact found during the Mississippian Period and curated on the site. Because a bone and metal knife was found in possible association with Burial 1, Mr. Parker believed the Madison Tablet was a Native American artifact dating to the early historic era.

At the moment, the Mississippian origin and temporal attribution for Burial 1 and the associated Madison Tablet are considered to be the most plausible.  However, the door must be left open to the possibility that the Madison Tablet could be a planted fake of 20th century origin.

5.0 Potential for Being a Fake Artifact

This section entertains the question of whether or not the Madison Tablet is a fake artifact.  Right now, the only argument in favor of this notion is the fact that the incised images on it do not “look Mississippian.” Then again, just because an Afrikaner does not “look African” is no sure indication that she was born outside of Africa. Consequently, if an archaeologist wishes to test whether the Madison Tablet is fake, he or she will need to go beyond mere appearances, look at the hard evidence already available In Section 2.0 and this section (including some not presented in this essay), develop even more hard evidence, and take a holistic look at the issue.

People who produce fake prehistoric incisings on limestone make some rather typical mistakes. For example, all of the engraved lines are distinct and easy to see. The incised lines tend to be of uniform thickness and depth. In addition, the lines often do not exhibit the same degree of staining and weathering as the natural surface of the limestone raw material.

As previously noted, the iconography incised into the obverse surface of the Madison Tablet consists of very narrow lines quite similar to those on the Thruston Tablet, including the presence of both distinct lines that are easy to see and long-ago faded lines that are difficult to see. Unlike recently faked limestone incisings, the lines on the Madison Tablet exhibit irregular widths and depths. Moreover, the exterior surfaces of this tablet have distinctive soil mineral staining, indicating that the Madison Tablet had been buried in soil for a long time. This staining is evident not just on its exterior surfaces, but also within all of the incised lines.

These observations about the lines were made informally in April 1969 when I had an opportunity to briefly view the Madison Tablet under excellent exterior lighting conditions. Unfortunately, these observations about the incised lines were made 45 years ago, and I was 16 years old at the time. Memories can fade with time, which is one very good reason why the Madison Tablet merits a closer examination today.

Could the Madison Tablet have been planted? A detail-oriented person who had seen the line variability on the Thruston Tablet might have gone to extraordinary lengths to forge similar lineation on the Madison Tablet. Subsequently, they could have planted the forged tablet in an already known Mississippian burial on the Maddox site, perhaps many decades prior to 1968. In other words, the Madison Tablet could have been planted like the Piltdown man cranial elements or the Bat Creek Stone. However, even this forge-and-plant scenario would present several problems. For example, replication of the subtle variability in lineation seen on the Thruston Tablet would have been a difficult and time-consuming task. Furthermore, the quartzite ear plug found in situ near the cranium of the Burial 1 individual would pose a problem. It seems unlikely that a 19th century antiquarian or 20th century artifact collector would have sacrificed such a nice and valuable ornamental artifact in support of a mischievous archaeological hoax.

People who plant fake artifacts in the ground are usually pursuing some sort of scientific, financial, political, social, or religious agenda. As soon as the planted artifact is found and made public, the people who planted it shift into agenda overdrive and publicly shout about how the new find supports their agenda. As we all know now, a scientific agenda with social connotations was clearly at work in the famous Piltdown forgery. During the entire time since the Madison Tablet was found in 1968, a period of 46 years, not a single person in the Nashville area or outside of it has ever spoken up to link this artifact to any sort of prevailing cultural agenda. Indeed, the silence on this point has been deafening, again making it unlikely that the Madison Tablet was a planted fake.

Based on what we know (or think we know) at this time, if Cyrus Thomas, W.E. Myer, Gates P. Thruston, and P.E. Cox were here, I feel certain they would say that the Madison Tablet “bears all of the ancient tell-tale marks of authenticity,” and as a professional archaeologist who has actually seen the Madison Tablet, I would have to agree with them―at least tentatively—until the tablet can be closely examined one more time.

6.0 Current Location of the Madison Tablet

In about 1994, the Madison Tablet dropped out of sight. It has not been seen by anyone in the local avocational or professional archaeological communities in the past 20 years, meaning it has never been on display at any Nashville or Tennessee area artifact collector show, and no professional archaeologists have ever had a chance to photograph it or otherwise study it. It is presumed that this artifact was sold to someone shortly after 1994, and it may have already changed hands a couple of times. If it was sold, the purchaser may have been an artifact collector or just an ordinary citizen who bought it as a piece of decorative art for their home or garden.

7.0 Legal Status of the Madison Tablet

It is important to note that the Madison Tablet has not been stolen from a private artifact collection or any museum collection. It was found on private property in 1968. Mr. Maddox was a local realtor who owned the 40DV17 property and was known to allow multiple artifact collectors to dig at will on his property. The Madison Tablet was found immediately after earthmoving had begun for a large retail store. The prevailing historical assumption has always been that Mr. Maddox still owned the 40DV17 property when the Madison Tablet was found. However, it is potentially possible that land ownership could have been transferred to the retailer or their holding company immediately prior to the beginning of earthmoving operations, meaning the Madison Tablet might have been found and removed inadvertently without retailer or holding company permission. The exact date when the Madison Tablet was found is unknown. A determination of who owned the property when earthmoving began would require in-depth research. Considering the variables, the passage of 46 years, and the uncertain disposition of old corporate construction records, such research might yield no clear answers as to who owned the property when the Madison Tablet was found―and most likely no one would even care about it today.

Excavation of the Madison Tablet occurred on private property and long before 1979, which means the current federal cultural resource management (CRM) statutes and regulations do not apply to this artifact. The Tennessee CRM statutes and regulations did not even exist when the Madison Tablet was found, which means none of them were violated by excavation and removal of the Madison Tablet. As a result, this is not an artifact that a federal or state agency could legally confiscate from its owner. In other words, the current owner of the Madison Tablet is not subject to arrest, prosecution, fines, or imprisonment by federal or state authorities. It is also highly unlikely that any private or public entity would ever attempt to confiscate the Madison Tablet.

8.0 Current Location of the Madison Tablet

In 1994, the Madison Tablet dropped out of sight―meaning off the archaeological radar screen and out of general public awareness. It has not been seen by anyone in the local avocational or professional archaeological communities in the past 20 years, meaning it has never shown up on display at any Nashville or Tennessee area artifact collector show. It is presumed that this artifact was sold to someone shortly after 1994, and it may have already changed hands a couple of times as a result of artifact trades or sales. If it was sold, the purchaser may have been an artifact dealer, artifact collector, or just an ordinary citizen who bought it as a piece of decorative art for their home or garden.

The best-case location scenario is one in which the Madison Tablet is owned by some responsible person who appreciates it, takes care of it, plans to keep it on United States soil, wants to know more about it, is not ashamed to own it, and is willing to let others know that he owns it—thereby sharing it with the general public.

Possible worst-case location scenarios abound. The following are just four of them:

A) The Madison Tablet is owned by a private citizen who has no earthly idea what it is. She bought it at a flea market, believing it was a cute piece of art done by some elementary school kids. It was taken home and now has a lovely place of its own in the Japanese rock garden behind the house.

B) A few years ago, the Figure 1 drawing of the Madison Tablet was shown to several artifact dealers who were asked to state whether they thought it was an authentic Native American artifact. Most were unwilling to express an opinion without seeing the actual limestone slab. However, a couple immediately expressed the opinion that it is obviously a fake artifact. They could tell because the incisings did not “look Native American.” If the Madison Tablet has come into contact with the wrong artifact dealer or appraiser, its last owner may have tossed it into the garbage bin―and if not―this fate may still be waiting for the tablet in the future.

C) The Madison Tablet may have been sold to an artifact collector in Europe, the Middle East, or Japan, which quite likely means it has no chance of ever being studied. It is gone from Tennessee forever, and the owner may know nothing about it except that he was told Native Americans made it.

D) The Madison Tablet may be owned by a timid and very secretive artifact collector who sits in his house cowering in fear and wild imaginings about federal or state authorities beating a path toward his door to confiscate the Madison Tablet and his Chevy Tahoe―or he is afraid to let anyone know he has an artifact collection for fear that someone will break into his house and steal it. Therefore, he will just let time drift by quietly, he will die someday, his surviving wife or children will sell the collection, and the Madison Tablet will end up in the hands of an artifact dealer who will declare it to be garbage or send it to a new owner in Japan. Consequently, no one here in the United States will ever be able to examine the Madison Tablet, and the full story it has to tell will be lost forever, unless the current owner bravely steps forward and allows that full story to be elucidated and told.

9.0 An Appeal for Your Help

The Madison Tablet is an important element in some long-term archaeological research I am doing, and I would very much like to find out who owns this incised limestone slab so I can get in touch with them and obtain permission to photograph it, take some measurements, examine it more closely, and make some notes on it. This is my sole purpose in attempting to find the stone. When I am finished, the owner can take it back home and do with it whatever he wishes.

If you own the Madison Tablet, please send me an e-mail message at orari14@gmail.com or tcbkjbbrown@comcast.net. If you are an artifact collector, avocational archaeologist, or professional archaeologist in Tennessee, another state, or elsewhere on planet Earth and you know who owns the Madison Tablet, please send me an e-mail message. If you are just an ordinary citizen out there on the American landscape and you have seen this artifact somewhere, like maybe as a decoration on the mantle above someone’s fireplace, please send me an e-mail message. Your identity will be kept confidential if you wish.

Finally, just to cover all the bases, I know a little bit about how human beings think—well—some human beings. Someone out there will look at the Figure 1 drawing of the Madison Tablet and say, “Oh! I’ve seen that! My best friend Fran has one just like that!” No. Only one of these exists. If your best friend Fran has one, it is the one and the only one on planet Earth. Please trust me and send me that e-mail message. Thank you very much for your help!

10.0 References

Myer, William E., “An Old Shawnee Town in Tennessee.” The Archaeologist. 2(1): 6-13, 1894 (January).

Parker, Malcolm, The Shawnees in Tennessee. Nashville: Central Printing, 1980.

Parker, Malcolm and LaUna Parker, Letter to Tracy Brown (Subject: Excavation of a Human Burial at 40DV17), July 2, 1982.

Smith, Kevin E. and James V. Miller, Speaking with the Ancestors: Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Tennessee-Cumberland Region. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2009.

Breakfast with A.R. Kelly

Today is the eve of Labor Day weekend. Labor Day is often referred to as the unofficial end of summer and beginning of autumn. The arrival of autumn means many professional archaeologists and their students will be preparing papers and making plans to attend the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) in Greenville, South Carolina (November 12 -15, 2014). The newly arrived autumn sun angle and the upcoming SEAC meeting brought to mind a brief but humorous personal encounter with a famous American archaeologist at the 1976 SEAC meeting in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

The maple leaves were orange and the clouds above were white at The University of Tennessee (Knoxville) in November 1976. It was time to head out for the SEAC meeting. As is still the case today, undergraduate and graduate archaeology students were on limited personal budgets, and it was most economical to pool resources and travel to the meeting in small groups. Dave McMahan had a dark green Ford Torino that was in good working condition, and he graciously consented to let me (Tracy Brown) and Wayne Roberts tag along on his trip to Tuscaloosa. On this particular trip, Dave quickly discovered that I was harboring a dark personal secret, one Wayne had already discovered the hard way on a previous road trip to visit with James Cambron in Huntsville, Alabama. As Wayne so aptly put it, “Tracy’s bladder must be the size of a walnut.”

The 1976 SEAC meeting was held at the Ramada Inn in downtown Tuscaloosa, and it was very well attended, probably because of its central location in the southeast and some very important presentations on the meeting schedule. One of these was a hold-your-breath-and-wait summary presentation by Jeff Chapman on his recent excavations at Icehouse Bottom. Another was a highly anticipated summary presentation by distinguished southeastern archaeologist Dr. Arthur Randolph Kelly on his past excavations at the Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon, Georgia. For those of you who might not be familiar with the late A.R. Kelly and his work in southeastern archaeology, you can catch up by clicking on the following biographical sketch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Randolph_Kelly

The Ramada Inn was crowded―to say the least. Multiple students were staying in small hotel rooms, and sleeping conditions reminded me of a ferret pile in a pet shop. My first night in one of those rooms was uncomfortable and almost sleepless, so I arose early in hopes of a peaceful, quiet, and lonely breakfast in the large hotel restaurant downstairs. It was not to be. I was stunned by the enormous crowd already gathered for breakfast. Every chair at every table was occupied, and the spaces between tables were chocked full of standing archaeologists who were sipping coffee, chomping on Danish rolls, and jabbering with their colleagues. The restaurant was hot and uncomfortable, clouds of tobacco smoke drifted through it, and the noise level was very high―almost deafening. I recall thinking: “Oh great, no sleep and now no food.” Then a miracle dropped from the heavens.

The diners at one table stood up all at once and left, and just as quickly, a restaurant worker wiped down the table. I shot for that table and claimed it. Here was my opportunity for a peaceful, lone, quiet breakfast. I had been seated only a few seconds when I suddenly noticed someone towering over my table. Glancing up, I encountered an old man in blue jeans. He was plump in the middle and crowned with greasy strings of gray, shoulder-length hair. It was A. R. Kelly, and he needed a chair for breakfast just as badly as I had a few moments earlier. Without really asking, he just pulled out a chair, plopped his bottom into it, and started talking to me. I am not sure how long the conversation lasted, but I do recall being the first to leave the table after finishing breakfast.

Much to my surprise, later that day, other UTK archaeology students would walk up to me and say, “Wow!!! You were having breakfast with A.R. Kelly this morning!!! How did you ever swing that?” They also wanted to know what the two of us had talked about and what rare gems of old-days-in-archaeology knowledge he had deposited in my ears. I said little to nothing in response.

Recently, my old tripmate (Wayne Roberts) retired from his job as Head Archaeologist for the South Carolina Department of Transportation. On holidays and other occasions, Wayne and Carol come to the Knoxville area for a visit, and our family meets them for dinner and an evening of catching up. (Just like with Dave McMahan, our kids know him as “Uncle Wayne.”)  Wayne and I also have long talks about various things on the telephone.

This past winter, just as a snowstorm was blowing into the Columbia area, Wayne and I had one of those long telephone conversations. During that conversation, he reminded me of my famous breakfast with A. R. Kelly. Once again, I was asked to recall the details of my in-depth discussions with Dr. Kelly on that fateful morning in 1976. I explained to Wayne that our talk went something like the following throughout our entire breakfast together:

A.R. Kelly: I tjgh kltj ltpylkg the ployitgfr yropthmt lkwrtylm.

Tracy:  Uh-huh

A.R. Kelly:  Wifllsldm cmhd jeoe kjfmn xnsn sgge weeks hdoplc xmnb.

Tracy: Really?

A.R. Kelly:  Tpol rkfldmnsb svvcdh dlfofi dhsgavc in the sbmfdl glglflksm nsbedb fjgklbllll.

Tracy:  Uh huh?

A.R. Kelly:  Kshsgd ftehkdl fljhdh akkieuet Ocmulgee wtfdndlsj hegbs yqwpmz 1938.

Tracy:  You don’t mean it? Well, I’ll be.

A.R. Kelly:  Well, kslshb cnvfd djbwfs frefkl fhhppl on the kdxmbb vsggs ls jdgvwt shjdkcnn.

Tracy:  Wow.

A.R. Kelly:  In about pldjrp utn gklsm cbbr uyds eow msbxvv cckllr xmszn Lamar.

Tracy:  I have to go now Dr. Kelly. Have a nice day.

A.R. Kelly was a rather quiet and soft-spoken person, and in his early morning grogginess, he was apparently unaware that the intense noise in the restaurant was drowning out nearly every word he said. I could not even hear myself talk in that place, so I wonder to this day if he was able to hear even the little bit that I said. However, I did learn an important lesson from my breakfast with A.R. Kelly, and it has paid off in spades over the years. If you ever need to have a really serious and meaningful conversation with someone, never do it in a noisy place. Pick some place comfortable and quiet.

Have a safe and happy Labor Day weekend!!!

A Final Note on Our Most Recent Series of Posts and Some Related Matters

The Archaeology in Tennessee blog understands that the four preceding posts on the Jimmy Carter Clause and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) may leave some artifact collectors in Tennessee and throughout the United States feeling hurt and angry. We hope you will realize that any sense of hurt and anger you feel is coming directly from the federal government rather than us here at the blog. It was not our intent to make you feel bad. We were just attempting to explain and clarify an element of the law that gets many artifact collectors confused. We here at the blog would like to say that we have nothing personal against most artifact collectors and avocational archaeologists. Some of the nicest and kindest people we have ever known were and are artifact collectors and avocational archaeologists.  We further understand that artifact collecting was once a time-honored American hobby that was generally accepted in the same vein as mom, the American flag, and apple pie.  As some have pointed out, the Boy Scouts of America once offered a merit badge for assembling a small collection of Native American artifacts. We also understand that it must be very difficult to live in a time when the government, a number of professional archaeologists, and many Native Americans tend to view all artifact collecting as immoral and sometimes criminal behavior.

During the 1960s and very early 1970s, professional archaeologists were nearly nonexistent in the Nashville area. If a kid was interested in archaeology, the only way he or she had to pursue their interest was reading books and talking to local artifact collectors and avocational archaeologists. The owner of this blog was one of those Nashville area kids. His early interest in archaeology was sparked by a close relative (Mr. Malcolm Parker) who lived in Nashville. When our owner was about 8 years old, Mr. Parker gave him a small canvas board with prehistoric artifacts glued to it. This board was probably a Christmas gift. The mounted artifacts were mostly whole projectile points/knives, haftable endscrapers, and ancient beads―some made out of human teeth. The 8-year-old kid had no appreciation for the board of artifacts, soon tore it all to pieces, and managed to lose all of the artifacts. Only Jesus knows where they are now—probably spread helter-skelter all over the ground of the old neighborhood back home in Gallatin, Tennessee. However, Mr. Parker persisted in his influence, and a strong interest in archaeology was indeed sparked within the kid at a later point in time. In one way or another, it would be fair to say that the kid grew up with artifact collectors and avocational archaeologists all around him. As a result, he learned a lot about prehistoric artifacts, artifact collectors, artifact-collecting practices, and avocational archaeology. Interestingly, the kid never had any real desire to be an artifact collector―perhaps predictable from the experience of that 8-year-old kid and his ill-fated canvas board. He wanted to grow up and be a real archaeologist.

We do not harbor a universal hatred for all artifact collectors here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog. We enjoy talking to artifact collectors, viewing their artifacts, and listening closely to any insights or information they might have that will help us with our own archaeological research projects. Unfortunately, it is very hard these days to find artifact collectors who are willing to sit down and chat with us professional archaeologists because of the huge war that has been going on between professional archaeologists and artifact collectors for the past 50 years. Many artifact collectors are afraid to interact with professional archaeologists because they are concerned about a perceived potential for fines, prison, or having their collections confiscated. A few artifact collectors today hate professional archaeologists with what Khan in Star Trek II called a “perfect hatred.” They are perfectly happy to talk with a professional archaeologist if the archaeologist will cede 100 percent approval of artifact collecting, even in its most irresponsible forms, and if the archaeologist is willing to sit silently and suffer heated verbal abuse for all of the perceived hurt archaeologists have inflicted on their hobby. Unfortunately, it has been our experience over the past 40 years that this small handful of hate-filled artifact collectors has been created by a similarly small handful of professional archaeologists who harbor equally vicious hatred for all artifact collectors. Those two extremist groups shout at each other so loudly that the artifact collectors and professional archaeologists who want to talk about their collections and our archaeology rarely get a peaceful and safe moment to do it. 

It should also be said that we here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not consider ourselves to be policemen or park rangers. Over the past 53 years, neither the blog owner nor anyone in his household has ever “taken down” or been a participant in “taking down” an artifact collector who was breaking federal laws or regulations. We would hasten to add that he has never witnessed such criminal behavior in others and has only rarely heard about it as a matter of second-hand or third-hand gossip. The truth of the matter is that most everyday professional archaeologists are too busy with their research to focus on such things and pretty much leave such enforcement to the federal and state authorities officially charged with that responsibility.

Like most professional archaeologists, we here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not officially approve of irresponsible artifact collecting―and a lot of it is irresponsible in nature―because irresponsible is easy and relaxing. In addition, while everyone loves a really nice artifact, we are not artifact focused here at the blog, which means we do not get a heated rush from holding a 10,000-year-old artifact in our hands, and we are not focused on art appreciation and the rescuing of artifacts for “art’s sake.” If a 9-inch Clovis point gets washed into the Tennessee River and is never seen again, no one around here is going to be in tears about it because that is not our focus. Instead, we are interested primarily in the 3-dimensional relationships that exist among artifacts, features, postmolds, hearths, and other such things within intact archaeological deposits and what those relationships can tell us about the prehistoric technologies, social organization, and ideology of the people who lived at an ancient archaeological site or at many sites in a river or stream valley. We are interested in the history of American archaeology itself, the current working conditions and state of affairs in the archaeological discipline, elucidating prehistory, and exploring the nature of past human behavior. The strong commitment to art appreciation per se that pervades the artifact-collecting community today is just not our bag.

Some artifact collectors do not like the content of certain posts on this blog. In our honest opinion, it is usually the artifact collectors who are gripped by hatred for professional archaeologists that go bananas over some of our posts that appear to portray artifact collectors in a negative light. As Art Linkletter used to remark, “Kids say the darndest things.” Because our blog owner was raised around artifact collectors, he knows from experience that they too “say and do some of the darndest things,” and those things are at times entertaining or tragic. However, virtually everything we might say about artifact collectors in our posts is something we have actually seen or experienced firsthand. For example, with regard to our post entitled Archaeological Advice Column, we have both read about and actually had conversations with a few artifact collectors who appeared to think that each archaeological site contains an endless supply of museum-grade artifacts, as if they are being reproduced biologically under the ground surface. The point we were making is that most things in this world really do have an endpoint. If you do not go to the grocery store and you keep on eating, the refrigerator will indeed go empty one day, and some artifact collectors need to tune into the basic fact that an archaeological site can be stripped of its meaning by collecting it to death over time. On a final note, some anger-oriented artifact collectors enjoy spewing hatred and verbal abuse at us. Malcolm Parker’s dad repeated a phrase to him numerous times as he was growing up, “Never go looking for trouble with people, but if someone gets on your back―get’em off.”  His son repeated  that maxim over the years, and we adopted it here at the blog.

On the flip side, we will be the first to say that professional archaeologists also “say and do some of the darndest things,” and they too can be quite entertaining and tragic. We are not inclined to circle the wagons about such things. A great many of the things we and other professional archaeologists do not like about the weird little world of professional archaeology (and it is indeed a weird little world) are subject to being addressed and discussed in our blog posts and the comment threads under them. Some of what we say may upset or disturb some professional archaeologists―or even occasionally drive one of them a little bit nuts. American archaeology is a discipline with deep-seated problems and issues (many of them moral and social issues), and it is a discipline that hides from those problems and pretends that they do not exist. It is always much easier to run from those problems than it is to turn around, face them square-on, study them, and implement changes that solve them. During the coming years, we are going to be discussing those tough problems in our blog posts. We suspect that some extremist archaeologists may become as emotionally ripped about our discussions on professional archaeology as some extremist artifact collectors are about some of our posts on irresponsible artifact collecting. Always, as is the case with artifact collectors, we try very hard to avoid naming names when discussing controversial or potentially upsetting subjects, and we have no desire whatsoever to intentionally defame other living archaeologists or make libelous statements that would hurt their reputations or careers.

We do intend to be a positive voice―but also an independent voice―in Tennessee archaeology and American archaeology. The owner of this blog is very close to retirement, most of his work is done in a high-paying field other than archaeology, he does not have any grant funding (and does not desire any), the limited amount of private sector archaeological work he does is funded out of his own pockets, he is already largely isolated socially from most other professional archaeologists (but not all), and he is heavily oriented towards electronic self-publishing. Why are we saying this? We do recall how a number of angry old men in professional archaeology tried to destroy the career of the late Lewis Binford by stripping him of his grant funding. American archaeology can be a really nasty and heartless place sometimes―it should not be―but it is. You know that, and we know that. We guess this is just our way of saying that the famous phrase that once floated around many academic anthropology departments in the old days, “I will see to it that you never work in American archaeology ever again” does not impress anyone here at the blog or have any real meaning to us―and is not likely to ever do so.

Ted Koppel and Sam Donaldson at ABC News probably said it best, and we tend to believe in a version of it here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog. Roughly paraphrased, they said, “If the people on both sides of an issue write to us and tell us that we are biased toward the other side, then we know we are doing something right.” Similarly, if both artifact collectors and professional archaeologists are a little unhappy from time to time about what we are doing here at the blog, then we know we are doing something right.

Finally, we realize that some of the language in the four preceding posts on the Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA may ruffle the feathers of some artifact collectors. For example, some might be put off by the phrase “nail their hides to the wall.” We used that language for a reason. Watch this brief video clip from the movie Star Trek IV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WTvEbUkeLM

The phrase “nail their hides to the wall” was common in the local culture of Middle Tennessee when our blog owner was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was one of his dad’s favorite expressions. This colorful metaphor, as Spock might call it, was not used to offend a person, but rather to impress upon a person the intense gravity of an offense and the severity of the punishment that such an offense would likely attract. Using this phrase was our way of saying that the cultural resource management (CRM) staffs at federal agencies take the federal CRM statutes and regulations very seriously, and they are now oriented toward strong enforcement, meaning mercy might not be in the cards if a collector gets arrested on federal property. It is important for artifact collectors to know that and take it very seriously. We thought the colorful metaphor would help to better register that fact in the minds of collectors.

The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA – Part IV: The “Less than 100 Years Old” Argument

We here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not claim to be licensed attorneys, and the text of this blog post should not be taken or construed as legal counsel. If you need such counsel, please contact a licensed attorney in your state or U.S. territory.  With that said, the owner of this blog has spent a great deal of the past 26 years working on federal contract projects that involved compliance with the many federal statutes and regulations applicable to protection of the environment in the United States. More than five of those years were spent as the lead Environmental Compliance Specialist for Battelle Memorial Institute (Oak Ridge), a federal prime contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. Collectively, the texts of these environmental statutes and regulations are voluminous, complex, and highly detailed―much more so than the current federal cultural resource management statutes and regulations. Multiple volumes of these environmental laws and regulations easily fill several shelves in a bookcase. Over the years, our blog owner has found that certain general principles and interpretive rules of thumb apply to the content of virtually all federal statutes and regulations, regardless of the subject matter that they address. Therefore, with his input, the blog feels reasonably qualified to offer some thoughts on the Jimmy Carter Clause and the confusion surrounding it within the artifact collector community.  This post is provided as a public service of the Oak Ridge Archaeological Research Institute.

This one is going to be short and to the point.  Section 3 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) states the following:

(1) The term “archaeological resource” means any material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest, as determined under the uniform regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act. Such regulations containing such determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. Nonfossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in an archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age. [Section 3 (a)]

Some artifact collectors have been known to state something along the lines of the following:

“Regardless of the Jimmy Carter Clause, Section 3 of ARPA says I can legally keep any artifacts I find on federal lands or in federal waters as long as they are less than 100 years old.  They can’t touch me as long as the artifacts I collect are that recent.”

Just like in the previous three main posts, ARPA contains no exemption language that turns off the applicability of other federal statutes and regulations to collector activities on federal lands and in federal waters. Federal agencies can still nail artifact collector hides to the wall using the other applicable federal statutes and regulations that deal with trespassing, stealing federal property, etc.  An artifact less than 100 years old that is collected on federal property is still federal property, regardless of ARPA.

 

The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA – Part III: The “I Got a Copy” Argument

We here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not claim to be licensed attorneys, and the text of this blog post should not be taken or construed as legal counsel. If you need such counsel, please contact a licensed attorney in your state or U.S. territory.  With that said, the owner of this blog has spent a great deal of the past 26 years working on federal contract projects that involved compliance with the many federal statutes and regulations applicable to protection of the environment in the United States. More than five of those years were spent as the lead Environmental Compliance Specialist for Battelle Memorial Institute (Oak Ridge), a federal prime contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. Collectively, the texts of these environmental statutes and regulations are voluminous, complex, and highly detailed―much more so than the current federal cultural resource management statutes and regulations. Multiple volumes of these environmental laws and regulations easily fill several shelves in a bookcase. Over the years, our blog owner has found that certain general principles and interpretive rules of thumb apply to the content of virtually all federal statutes and regulations, regardless of the subject matter that they address. Therefore, with his input, the blog feels reasonably qualified to offer some thoughts on the Jimmy Carter Clause and the confusion surrounding it within the artifact collector community.  This post is provided as a public service of the Oak Ridge Archaeological Research Institute.

The highest aspiration of most artifact collectors is to find what one might describe as museum-grade artifacts, and they firmly believe the best places to find such artifacts are archaeological sites within major river valleys. Unfortunately, for the collector, those sites tend to be on land and under waters owned by federal agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The magnetic draw of such sites and the overwhelming desire to find a really great artifact creates a level of desperation within many collectors. Consequently, they will grasp at any anecdotal hope or item of folklore that might allow one to surface hunt or dig for artifacts on these lands without fear of arrest, prosecution, fines, and imprisonment. The old colloquial expression for this kind of thing is “grasping for straws.”

One such anecdotal straw we have seen in several places on-line over the years is the notion that carrying a paper copy of the Jimmy Carter Clause in your pocket while surface hunting for arrowheads on federal lands or in federal waters—or taking a copy of it to court—can serve as a Get-Out-of-Trouble Free Card or Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card for the collector. How does this scheme supposedly work in the field? Well, if you are surface hunting for arrowheads on federal lands or in federal waters and an agency ranger or other agency law enforcement officer catches you red handed, all you have to do is whip out your copy of the Jimmy Carter Clause and one other page in ARPA and show them to the officer. Those papers would have the following highlighted in yellow:

(d) Any person who knowingly violates, or counsels, procures, solicits, or employs any other person to violate, any prohibition contained in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both: Provided, however, that if the commercial or archaeological value of the archaeological resources involved and the cost of restoration and repair of such resources exceeds the sum of $500, such person shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent such violation upon conviction such person shall be fined not more than $100,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(d)]

(g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shall be deemed applicable to any person with respect to the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground. [16 U.S.C.470 (ee)(g)] a.k.a. The Jimmy Carter Clause

(3) No penalty shall be assessed under this section for the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground. [Section 7 (a) (3)]

The officer then takes a close look at your two pieces of paper, realizes that they look official, and reads the yellow highlighted areas. She then says: “Well, I never knew that, but it sure says it right here in black and white. Sorry to have bothered you sir. Go ahead with your collecting and have a nice day.”

On the Arrowheadology web forum called Arrowhead Hunting & Collecting, a commenter with the handle name Wichita (April 2010) offered an anecdotal example of a collector who had tried this “I Got a Copy” argument when he went to court. You can read this brief story at the following URL:

http://www.arrowheadology.com/forums/arrowhead-hunting-collecting/2509-carter-clause-2.html

(Scroll down when you get to the web page)

The Archaeology in Tennessee blog has little doubt that the “I Got a Copy” argument has been tried by a few isolated artifact collectors in some places and at some times in the past. We further have no doubt that there was some agency law enforcement officer or federal judge who either never got or never read the memorandum about ARPA and agency strategies for cultural resource enforcement. Perhaps the officer was out sick on training day. Perhaps the officer was a new employee who still had a lot to learn. Perhaps the anecdotal event happened soon after ARPA was signed into law, and the local agency office did not have enough time to immediately develop and implement an enforcement strategy for cultural resources protection. Be it anecdotal evidence or folklore, the “I Got a Copy” argument may have even worked a few times like in the Arrowheadology example.

Here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog, we seriously doubt that the “I Got a Copy” argument would work on any federal agency law enforcement officer or federal judge today. The ARPA statute and regulations are old news now―about 36 years old. That is more than enough time for everyone to have gotten their enforcement act together on surface collecting of arrowheads on federal lands. The Archaeology in Tennessee blog believes firmly that the “I Got a Copy” argument is both foolish and dangerous. No artifact collector in his right mind should allow himself to be deceived into surface hunting on federal lands or hunting in federal waters under the assumption that a pocketed copy of certain key pages in ARPA (or the whole statute) will function as a Get-Out-of-Trouble Free Card or a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card. Once again, the wisest thing to do is avoid surface hunting for artifacts on federal lands and in federal waters.

The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA – Part II: The “Bird Points” Argument

We here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not claim to be licensed attorneys, and the text of this blog post should not be taken or construed as legal counsel. If you need such counsel, please contact a licensed attorney in your state or U.S. territory.  With that said, the owner of this blog has spent a great deal of the past 26 years working on federal contract projects that involved compliance with the many federal statutes and regulations applicable to protection of the environment in the United States. More than five of those years were spent as the lead Environmental Compliance Specialist for Battelle Memorial Institute (Oak Ridge), a federal prime contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. Collectively, the texts of these environmental statutes and regulations are voluminous, complex, and highly detailed―much more so than the current federal cultural resource management statutes and regulations. Multiple volumes of these environmental laws and regulations easily fill several shelves in a bookcase. Over the years, our blog owner has found that certain general principles and interpretive rules of thumb apply to the content of virtually all federal statutes and regulations, regardless of the subject matter that they address. Therefore, with his input, the blog feels reasonably qualified to offer some thoughts on the Jimmy Carter Clause and the confusion surrounding it within the artifact collector community.  This post is provided as a public service of the Oak Ridge Archaeological Research Institute.

Although the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 uses the term arrowhead twice in its text, the statute itself never formally defines it.  However, the federal regulation at 43 CFR 7.3 (b) defines an arrowhead as “any projectile point which appears to have been designed for use with an arrow.”

For many generations in American culture, any pointed-looking stone tool with a hafting area and an overall length of about 3 inches or less has been referred to colloquially as an arrowhead. Any such tool longer than about 3 inches has been referred to colloquially as a spearhead. From an archaeological perspective, these colloquialisms are bogus. Most of these so-called arrowheads were actually used on atlatl darts or as knives, hence the professional lithic term projectile point/knife (pp/k). Fluted points such as the famous Clovis, Folsom, and Cumberland specimens were actually hafted to narrow bone foreshafts set into the ends of spears, which means that they were actually spear points. Generally speaking, only the very smallest and most delicate projectile points were used on the tips of arrows. Two of the most common examples in the American southeast were Hamilton and Madison points. Over the years, many artifact collectors have referred to these as bird points because someone surmised long ago that their tiny size suited them only for bagging small birds during ancient hunting trips. Can you say “bluebird”?  That too is now considered to be major bogus.

Some collectors of Native American artifacts are topical collectors, which means they prefer to collect a particular kind of artifact. For example, in Texas, some artifact collectors are enamored with the very small, dentate, eccentric-looking bird points that are presumed to have been used on the business end of ancient arrows. Other topical collectors prefer Hamilton and Madison points.

In Part I of our discussion on the Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA, we mentioned that artifact collectors often generate homespun legal theories about the meanings of federal cultural resource management statutes and regulations―theories that could result in a hefty fine and prison time if implemented. One of them goes something like this:

“The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA says it is okay for us to collect arrowheads on federal lands. But we see a problem here. Fluted points were used on spears, and most other projectile points were either used as tips on atlatl darts or as knives. Therefore, using a strict constructionist approach (the kind my hero Justice Antonin Scalia uses with the U.S. Constitution) to ARPA, it only follows that we collectors cannot collect fluted points, atlatl points, spent knives, and certain other kinds of lithic artifacts because they are not really arrowheads. What this does mean is that the Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA makes it open season on collecting Hamilton points, Madison points, and other kinds of bird points on federal lands. So let’s go git’em!!!”

Not true. As noted in Part I, collecting arrowheads (even narrowly defined) is illegal on federal lands under ARPA. The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA only exempts arrowhead collectors from the severe prosecution penalties under ARPA alone. For those artifact collectors seeking overall exemption from arrest and prosecution, the main thing they need to understand is that the Jimmy Carter Clause is as worthless to them as a $3.00 bill because it contains no exemption language that turns off the applicability of other federal laws and penalties outside of ARPA. A fine, strict constructionist parsing of the Jimmy Carter Clause yields nothing useful for the collector. Bird points lying around on the surface of the ground on federal lands (and in federal waters) are still federal property. This means federal authorities can use other federal laws besides ARPA to nail collector hides to the wall for trespassing, stealing federal property, etc. Functionally and for all practical purposes, the utility of the Jimmy Carter Clause for totally protecting collectors on federal lands is a myth. From an overall perspective, it might as well be a piece of soiled toilet paper for all the protection it provides to collectors. Just think of it as being worthless with regard to these other statutes and regulations. The only way to be safe from arrest, prosecution, fines, and prison time under these other laws is to completely avoid collecting artifacts on federal lands and in federal waters.

The Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA – Part I

We here at the Archaeology in Tennessee blog do not claim to be licensed attorneys, and the text of this blog post should not be taken or construed as legal counsel. If you need such counsel, please contact a licensed attorney in your state or U.S. territory. With that said, the owner of this blog has spent a great deal of the past 26 years working on federal contract projects that involved compliance with the many federal statutes and regulations applicable to protection of the environment in the United States. More than five of those years were spent as the lead Environmental Compliance Specialist for Battelle Memorial Institute (Oak Ridge), a federal prime contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. Collectively, the texts of these environmental statutes and regulations are voluminous, complex, and highly detailed―much more so than the current federal cultural resource management statutes and regulations. Multiple volumes of these environmental laws and regulations easily fill several shelves in a bookcase. Over the years, our blog owner has found that certain general principles and interpretive rules of thumb apply to the content of virtually all federal statutes and regulations, regardless of the subject matter that they address. Therefore, with his input, the blog feels reasonably qualified to offer some thoughts on the Jimmy Carter Clause and the confusion surrounding it within the artifact collector community. This post is provided as a public service of the Oak Ridge Archaeological Research Institute.

The Archaeology in Tennessee blog is taking this opportunity to (once and for all) clear up one of the great and abiding mysteries within the communities of people who collect Native American artifacts in Tennessee and throughout the United States. This mystery involves the so-called Jimmy Carter Clause in the federal Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). What is this great mystery? Well, an artifact collector might explain it something like this:

“That there Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA says in black-and-white English that it is okay for us Indian relic collectors to do surface hunting for arrowheads on federal lands. This law plainly makes it legal for us to do it. Jimmy Carter was President of the United States when he signed ARPA into law back in 1979, and because he too was a surface arrowhead hunter down in Georgia, he made sure the U.S. Congress put in an exemption for us collectors when they wrote this law. We don’t understand why federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are breaking this law right and left by arresting us, fining us, and sending us to prison for surface collecting arrowheads on federal lands. How can they do this to us and get away with it?”

The text of the now famous Jimmy Carter Clause is located at 16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(g), and it refers back to 16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(d) in the same Act. These two texts read as follows:

(d) Any person who knowingly violates, or counsels, procures, solicits, or employs any other person to violate, any prohibition contained in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both: Provided, however, that if the commercial or archaeological value of the archaeological resources involved and the cost of restoration and repair of such resources exceeds the sum of $500, such person shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent such violation upon conviction such person shall be fined not more than $100,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(d)]

(g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shall be deemed applicable to any person with respect to the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground. [16 U.S.C.470 (ee)(g) - a.k.a. The Jimmy Carter Clause]

The level and extent of artifact collector confusion about the Jimmy Carter Clause becomes obvious when one visits any of the major, on-line artifact forums where collectors congregate to discuss their latest finds and a host of other issues, including federal statutes and regulations that can adversely affect their collecting activities. The regulatory discussions sometimes degenerate into complete silliness that sounds like a bunch of farmers gathered around a pot-bellied stove to discuss particle physics and quantum mechanics. These collectors generate some of the oddest homespun legal theories about artifact collecting that we have ever seen. When a truly knowledgeable person shows up and tries to clarify the matter in truthful legal terms, a few of the collectors understand, others go into classic psychological denial of the plainly presented truth, and others get very angry that a person with real knowledge would dare to show up and set them straight on the matter. The messenger of truth can be fairly well assured that he or she will be banned from making future comments on the forum. When a knowledgeable person does not intervene with legal facts and truth, the group discussion often ends with discussant agreement on some homespun legal theory that is highly liable to eventually result in fines and/or prison time when they go out and implement it.

First, we address the question: “Does the Jimmy Carter Clause in ARPA make it legal for artifact collectors to surface hunt for arrowheads on federal lands?”

The answer is a profound “NO.” Take a look at the following definition of the term archaeological resource in the ARPA statute and then look at the ARPA prohibition beneath it:

(1) The term “archaeological resource” means any material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act. Such regulations containing such determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of any of the foregoing items. Nonfossilized and fossilized paleontological specimens, or any portion or piece thereof, shall not be considered archaeological resources, under the regulations under this paragraph, unless found in an archaeological context. No item shall be treated as an archaeological resource under regulations under this paragraph unless such item is at least 100 years of age. [Section 3(I)]

(a) No person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any archaeological resource located on public lands or Indian lands unless such activity is pursuant to a permit issued under section 4 of this Act, a permit referred to in section 4(h)(2) of this Act, or the exemption contained in section 4(g)(1) of this Act. [Section 6(a)]

The term arrowhead clearly falls under the definition of an archaeological resource. Arrowheads are definitely the material remains of past human life or activities, they are of archaeological interest, and they are considered to be weapons, weapon projectiles, or tools. There is no way they can escape from that definition. When you consider this simple fact in combination with the stated prohibitions in Section 6(a), ARPA does indeed prohibit the removal of arrowheads from the ground surface on federal lands. Therefore, in answer to the first collector question above, the Jimmy Carter Clause does not make it legal for artifact collectors to surface hunt for arrowheads on federal lands. It is illegal to do so.

Second, we now address the question: “Then how does the Jimmy Carter Clause help artifact collectors?”

The answer to this one is pretty simple. If artifact collectors decide to go ahead and violate the ARPA prohibition on surface collecting for arrowheads (only) on federal lands, the Jimmy Carter Clause protects them from the severe ARPA penalties set forth above in 16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(d).  Please note that the ARPA regulation at 43 CFR 7.3 (b) defines an arrowhead as “any projectile point which appears to have been designed for use with an arrow.”  Most of the prehistoric projectile points collectors pick up on the ground surface were never used on arrows.

Third, we now address the question: “Then does that mean artifact collectors can surface hunt for arrowheads illegally on federal lands and have blessed assurance that the Jimmy Carter Clause protects them from all arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonments?”

The answer is an emphatic “NO.”  Clearly, the federal government believes artifact collecting on federal lands is wicked.  Either intentionally or unintentionally, it has laid a subtle trap for artifact collectors by omitting key language from the Jimmy Carter Clause.  As the Holy Bible says, “There is no rest for the wicked.”

The master ring for this trap is the term exemption, which means to cancel the applicability of a law or regulation in an official way. Exemption language is most often used when the text of a new federal statute or regulation conflicts with the text of already existing federal statutes and regulations. In such cases, the writers of the new statute or regulation often include specific text that exempts individuals, organizations, or other entities from certain conflicting requirements in the already existing statutes and regulations. The Congressional legal staff members who wrote the ARPA statute did not incorporate any exemption language for these other statutes and regulations into the text of the Jimmy Carter Clause [16 U.S.C. 470 (ee)(g)]. If the writers had incorporated exemption text into the Jimmy Carter Clause, it might read something like the following today:

(g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shall be deemed applicable to any person with respect to the removal of arrowheads located on the surface of the ground. To the extent that this statute is in conflict with already existing federal statutes and regulations, the text of subsection (g) shall supercede and nullify their applicability to surface collecting for arrowheads on federal lands.

The omission of such exemption language from the Jimmy Carter Clause might have been a simple mistake, or it might have been intentional. Who knows? Whichever the case might be, it is indeed absent from the law, and that absence alone is the root of the trap waiting for artifact collectors. If this omission was intentional, a famous farmer’s lament about 19th century federal land grants in Kansas would certainly apply to the situation: “The federal government has given it with one hand and taken it away with the other.”

Fourth, we now address the question: “In practical terms, what does the omission of this exemption language in the Jimmy Carter Clause mean for the person who illegally collects arrowheads on federal lands—and what exactly is this trap?”

Completely apart from ARPA, it means all other existing federal laws and regulations applicable to artifact collecting on federal lands remain in full force. For example, other federal laws and regulations make it illegal to trespass on, steal, or vandalize federal property. Arrowheads and other artifacts on federal lands are considered to be federal property. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, collecting archaeological resources, including arrowheads, on federal lands violates 43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(1), the Antiquities Act of 1906, and Title18 of the United States criminal code.

If a person collects arrowheads, prehistoric ceramics, or other types of ancient artifacts on federal property, he is in violation of those other laws―regardless of what is stated in ARPA and its Jimmy Carter Clause. To reiterate, federal authorities can still legally nail a collector’s hide to the wall for violating any of the other federal statutes or regulations applicable to collecting arrowheads and other artifacts on federal lands because ARPA does not contain any exemption language that turns off the applicability of these other federal statutes and regulations. This is why surface hunting on Tennessee Valley Authority lands (and waters) and other federal lands (and waters) can get artifact collectors into really big trouble. Read that word “trouble” as fines and/or prison sentences.

In decades past, federal agencies had neither the will nor the manpower to enforce these other laws that are applicable to artifact collecting. As a result, convictions of collectors were often few and far between, especially here in the eastern United States. However, in recent years, this has been changing. Federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been specifically schooling their agency law enforcement officers on how to go about identifying and nailing artifact collectors on federal lands here in the East. What was once spotty and “hit or miss” enforcement has become a conscious, intentional, and highly focused effort to identify, arrest, and punish collectors who break the law. The U. S. National Park Service requires all federal agencies to complete and submit a standardized annual report (Questionnaire on Federal Archaeology Program Activities) about the cultural resource management activities on their lands and facilities, and this report is required to include a detailed summary of recent agency efforts to prevent looting of archaeological sites on agency lands and of their successes in prosecuting those who do the looting. Basically, the success of federal agency anti-looting and enforcement activities is being monitored and tracked annually. Whenever an agency activity is monitored and tracked, it creates increased pressure on the agency to perform and demonstrate positive results in terms of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions. This means that artifact collectors who violate federal laws applicable to artifact collecting on federal lands are now in more peril than ever before. As the old saying goes, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”