Drugs, Arms, and Arrowheads

Proulx, Blythe Bowman

doi:10.1177/1043986211418891

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ubiquity of looting is confirmed by the experiences of archaeologists. A survey by Proulx (2011a) found that 97.9% of archaeologists responding stated that looting was a problem in their research areas, and more than three-quarters could describe firsthand evidence of or encounters with looters. These ranged from relatively benign (encountering looter's pits in excavations) to violent (multiple episodes of robbery at gunpoint) (Proulx 2011a, p. 507).…”

Section: Scale Of Lootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Violence has also been reported in association both with attempts to prosecute looting (e.g., Powell 2003) and with competition between looters, such as the firefights between rival groups of looters described in essays in Desmarais (2015). Some governmental reports from Turkey have concluded that the death toll associated with competition between antiquities traffickers is greater than it had been between competing heroin smuggling rings at the peak of heroin trafficking in the 1960s (Proulx 2011a; see also Conklin 1994, p. 161). The number of looters killed during clandestine tunneling is unknown, but numerous deaths have been documented (e.g., Panella 2014, p. 494), andHanna (2015, pp.…”

Section: Impact and Costs Of Lootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other parts of the world, looting is associated less with terrorism than with drug trafficking. In a survey by Proulx (2011a), nearly one-third of field archaeologists agreed or strongly agreed that archaeological looting is generally associated with drugs and drug activity (p. 508); this percentage is considerably higher in portions of North America owing to links between looting and the use and have converted British pounds to US dollars for the Nataraja Shiva at current exchange rates and rather generously assumed that the one pig given for the Asteas krater was worth $300.…”

Section: Links Between Looting and Drug Trafficking And Other Crimina...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Barker

2018

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Looting and spoliation of archaeological sites represent a known crisis in many parts of the world, and it is widely acknowledged that despite what we know about the scale of site destruction, the reality is worse. Available evidence suggests that the scale and severity of looting are increasing. Legal and ethical remedies exist but have not proven adequate to reduce the impact of looting and antiquities trafficking. This reflects, in part, inadequate resources and uneven enforcement, and also the pressures of rising prices for antiquities, growing market demand, severe economic depression, and lawlessness, particularly in conflict zones. But it also reflects expanding ideological causes for site destruction by others, as well as competing epistemologies and deontological expectations within the discipline itself challenging the site preservation imperative in archaeology. More than ten years ago, a previous review of these topics found the response inadequate; a decade later, matters are worse.

show abstract

Section: Scale Of Lootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact and Costs Of Lootingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Links Between Looting and Drug Trafficking And Other Crimina...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Barker

2018

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These statistics underscore the variable complexity and cost of ARPA investigations. Some involve misguided but otherwise reputable citizens; others involve repeated violations, weapons, drugs, and other aggravating factors (Moriarty et al 2019; Patel 2009; Proulx 2011). Although ARPA is a “general intent” law, few prosecutors pursue cases that lack evidence for both criminal intent and for damage to the archaeological value of the affected resources in excess of $500 (or for commercial value plus the cost of restoration and repair for those resources exceeding $500).…”

Section: Arpa Provides a Sturdy Framework For Cultural Resource Damag...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Resource Damage Assessment

Welch

Cowell

Ryan

et al. 2023

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unauthorized cultural resource alterations range from looting and grave robbing to contract violations and wildland fires. Such alterations degrade cultural resources’ spiritual, communal, ecological, economic, and scientific values. Alterations often violate communal senses of place, security, and belonging. Alterations complicate jurisdiction-specific management, which is premised on up-to-date information on resource sizes, conditions, and significance. Cultural resource damage assessment protocols based on proven forensic practices distil to eight fieldwork steps: verify the alteration, assemble the team, survey the scene, document the evidence, gather the evidence, assess the archaeological value and the cost of repair and restoration, prescribe emergency remediation, and confirm evidence documentation and custody. The eight steps give special consideration to local communities and Indigenous Territories, where unauthorized alterations are as common as they are elsewhere, whereas impacts to spiritual and cultural values are generally greater. Adapted to jurisdiction- and incident-specific circumstances, the steps will guide responses to alterations by community leaders, land managers, regulators, law enforcement agents, and archaeologists, including preparation of excellent damage assessment reports. Damage assessment practitioners and land managers should refine these practices to deter alterations, engage Tribes and other affected communities, halt postalteration degradation, ensure accountability, and enable jurisdiction-scale curation of cultural resources and their unique value constellations.

show abstract

“…In fact, no one disputes that there are distinct criminal dynamics in moving, fencing, selling, and buying unprovenanced antiquities, and it is not at all uncommon to find criminologically oriented language employed to describe these phenomena. 24 Terms such as plunder (Brown 2015;Andrews 2003; rob/robbery/robber) (Bohstrom 2017;Mueller 2016;Lehr 2013;Hamblin 1970; theft/thievery/thieves) (Harari 2017;Akhtar 2012;Bowman Proulx 2011;Bogdanos 2005; steal/stolen) (Glazer 2017;Thompson 2015; vandal/vandalism) (Steinbuch 2017; Greenberg 2016; mafia/mob) (Harkin 2016;Nadeau 2016; cultural racketeering) (Lehr 2013; heritage/culture crime, crime against culture) (Fincham 2014;Sadeghi 2014;Chabiera 2011;Bowman Proulx 2008) are routinely used to describe the unauthorized removal and subsequent movement and sale of culturally significant material from the archaeological record. The theme at a recent international conference on protecting cultural heritage even focused on "challenges for criminal justice," 25 at which Fincham (2014) referenced cultural heritage as a matter to be "policed" and an offense in which "the 'thief' could be prosecuted, and the criminal law will "punish someone who has taken a beautiful work, [allow] prosecutors and law enforcement to show that serious thefts will not be tolerated, and .…”

Section: Looters As Victims or Criminalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Archaeologists as Eyewitnesses to Site Looting

Balestrieri

2018

Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent worldwide study on the nature, scope, and frequency of archaeological site looting, the vast majority of field archaeologists reported having had multiple encounters with archaeological site looters both on- and off-site. Despite the criminalization of looting in most countries’ domestic statutory schemes, nearly half of surveyed field archaeologists do not report looting activity to external law enforcement or archaeological authorities when they encounter it. The rationales for their actions—or inactions—are examined within a criminological framework, and field archaeologists’ perspectives on looters as “criminals” and “victims” are explored. The paper concludes with a consideration that the criminalization of looting creates an emergent duty to report among archaeologists, and how they choose to address site looting changes their role in and relationship to the trade in illicitly obtained antiquities.

show abstract

Drugs, Arms, and Arrowheads

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Cultural Resource Damage Assessment

Field Archaeologists as Eyewitnesses to Site Looting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About