Its probably been asked before but.......

[coinshooter]

It's probably been asked before but.......

Are there laws prohibiting keeping indian artifacts that are randomly found on
public land that is not protected in any way?
I'm talking stone items here, not jewelry, or other stuff.

 

[latrans]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

I can't speak about the laws everywhere in the US but collecting is illegal on all public lands in Iowa and I know that it is illegal on all federal land.

 

[Tnmountains]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

[PDF]
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. AS AMENDED. This Act became law on October 31, 1979 (Public Law 96-95; 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm), and has ...

www.nps.gov/history/local-law/fhpl_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf

See section G below pertaining to surface finds (NO DIGGING EVER !!)

Penalities (d) Any person who knowingly violates, or counsels, pro-
cures, 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 archaeologi-
cal 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 con-
viction such person shall be fined not more than $100,000,
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
16 U.S.C. 470ee(e),
Effective date (e) The prohibitions contained in this section shall take
effect on October 31, 1979 [the date of the enactment of this
Act].
16 U.S.C. 470ee(f),
Prospective application (f) Nothing in subsection (b)(1) of this section shall be
deemed applicable to any person with respect to any
archaeological resource which was in the lawful possession
of such person prior to October 31, 1979.
16 U.S.C. 470ee(g),
Removal of arrow-
heads located on
ground surface
(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.

 

[coinshooter]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

So, are you saying it is illegal (according to the law) to keep or pick up an object that appears to be an indian artifact on open public land such as a beach?

 

[shorelinesearcher]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Well, I never imagined my first post would be this, but here goes.
I realize TVA is limited in size relative to all federal lands, but it is federal land none the less.

http://www.tva.gov/river/landandshore/culturalresources/faq.htm

There is a paragraph on this page that refers directly to the question you ask, remember, this is as pertains to TVA and may not apply to other Federal lands.

hope this helps

searcher

 

[coinshooter]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

So according to what the TVA wrote, I can pick it up and take it home if it
is laying on the ground, but the feds can come and take anything they want any time they want. What a great country we live in!!
That like the lady ranger who tells me (during a detecting outing), "Ya know, if you find anything over $100 be sure and turn it in at the ranger station". I said, "Yah, I'll be sure to do that!" Right.
Next question I should ask. How come it's our land, but it's still considered federal land? Don't we
control the federal gov't? Sure, Right!

 

[Tnmountains]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Its a slippery law for sure.

 

[shorelinesearcher]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

I have been stopped in my boat by wildlife resources (not TVA) checking for safety gear, registration, etc. While I was digging out my throw cushion, they were flipping thru my brokes and other goodies and asking if I ever found any thing good. We had a pleasant conversation about how any thing good was few & far between these days, he even overlooked my not having a fire extinguisher on board. Told me to have a nice day as he left. However, there is a TVA office in town that supposedly has two officers assigned just to curb this type of activity. I have never seen them while I was out, but have heard that they are stopping people and warning them about the ramifications of artifact excavation on TVA lands.

 

[lostcauses]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

So, are you saying it is illegal (according to the law) to keep or pick up an object that appears to be an Indian artifact on open public land such as a beach?

If it is on federal land it is best to leave it be.

Some say the arrowhead clause says you can pick em up and take em.. check with an some one who has studied law before listing to such talk. It can save you some money.

Arguments go on about ARPA a lot in the artifact hunting community.

Don't bother with the arguments go ask ask a federal prosecutor what they think.
Some will say the clause that states arrowhead means they can be taken. It is such that ARPA states the government owns it. It, being a archeological resource.
So the prosecution of that "arrowhead" will come under such as conversion of government property, and or theft of government property.

It is most states there are laws to protect archeological material.
Again it is a simple game of do you have permission.

If not leave it be.

 

[Tnmountains]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Who owns Federal land I forget??

 

[lostcauses]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Who owns Federal land I forget??

Hmm about 307,006,550 own each and every item of goverment property. So a find that you found, you would only own about 1/307,006,550 of it.

LOL

 

[Tnmountains]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Who owns Federal land I forget??

Hmm about 307,006,550 own each and every item of goverment property. So a find that you found, you would only own about 1/307,006,550 of it.

LOL

haha I knew I could get you to smile!!!
Anything new out in the 4 corners case?

 

[lostcauses]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

Who owns Federal land I forget??

Hmm about 307,006,550 own each and every item of goverment property. So a find that you found, you would only own about 1/307,006,550 of it.

LOL

haha I knew I could get you to smile!!!
Anything new out in the 4 corners case?

Looks like a couple more are going to plea deal on their charges. Will post when it comes up. Was a news report of such.

The one guy that was trying for the recordings and video as not lawful dropped that hearing.
It is still going on. The sources death has not stopped the case.

Crazy stuff.



http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14758618
Is the news article.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

It is okay for banks, mortgages companies and politicians to rob us blind, but just make sure some poor smuck doesn't pick up an arrowhead out of a stream in a federal forest somewhere and save it from being washed down the stream and lost forever, after all we all know how much archaeological information it contains as it washes miles down stream from where it originated.........

 

[Th3rty7]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

It is okay for banks, mortgages companies and politicians to rob us blind, but just make sure some poor smuck doesn't pick up an arrowhead out of a stream in a federal forest somewhere and save it from being washed down the stream and lost forever, after all we all know how much archaeological information it contains as it washes miles down stream from where it originated.........

well said...bunch of hypocrites.

 

[lostcauses]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

It is okay for banks, mortgages companies and politicians to rob us blind, but just make sure some poor smuck doesn't pick up an arrowhead out of a stream in a federal forest somewhere and save it from being washed down the stream and lost forever, after all we all know how much archaeological information it contains as it washes miles down stream from where it originated.........

well said...bunch of hypocrites.

Does that arrowhead keep that money you are using valid and worth some thing?? No.

I don't agree with the bail out at all, it is one of the bigest rip off of the public I have ever seen,(Bush and co.) yet I do understand the why of it. My personal opinion it has just prolonged the enevetable. Yet even that may be extended now that them insurance companies ( who owns them?) may get an extension due to the health care crap, to survive a bit longer. This whole mess from Bush and Obama is about keeping that almighty dollar worth some thing. It is never about the people.

Yet it has nothing, nothing: to do with breaking a law to get an artifact. Stop BSing your selves.
You folks are not saving history, you are finding and taking an arrowhead.
If you are knowingly breaking them rules or laws, well what happens when you get caught ruining a red light, or a stop sign?? If you are breaking rules or laws, expect problems.

 

[Th3rty7]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

It is okay for banks, mortgages companies and politicians to rob us blind, but just make sure some poor smuck doesn't pick up an arrowhead out of a stream in a federal forest somewhere and save it from being washed down the stream and lost forever, after all we all know how much archaeological information it contains as it washes miles down stream from where it originated.........

well said...bunch of hypocrites.

Does that arrowhead keep that money you are using valid and worth some thing?? No.

I don't agree with the bail out at all, it is one of the bigest rip off of the public I have ever seen,(Bush and co.) yet I do understand the why of it. My personal opinion it has just prolonged the enevetable. Yet even that may be extended now that them insurance companies ( who owns them?) may get an extension due to the health care crap, to survive a bit longer. This whole mess from Bush and Obama is about keeping that almighty dollar worth some thing. It is never about the people.

Yet it has nothing, nothing: to do with breaking a law to get an artifact. Stop BSing your selves.
You folks are not saving history, you are finding and taking an arrowhead.
If you are knowingly breaking them rules or laws, well what happens when you get caught ruining a red light, or a stop sign?? If you are breaking rules or laws, expect problems.

I don't know , what happens when you get caught ruining a red light? Do the spell check police come and get you? You know what they say about opinions right?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

[
Yet it has nothing, nothing: to do with breaking a law to get an artifact. Stop BSing your selves.
You folks are not saving history, you are finding and taking an arrowhead.
If you are knowingly breaking them rules or laws, well what happens when you get caught ruining a red light, or a stop sign?? If you are breaking rules or laws, expect problems.

There is NO archaeological value in artifacts once they reach running water, none what so ever. Everything they were associated with is lost as they travel down stream. I know this because I took several of the nice pieces, a pipe and several points I found to the Archaeological department at the University to inquire about them, and was told by the head of the department that they were high quality. When I asked if there was a problem collecting them or if I should report where they were found he replied they had lost their archaeological value once they hit running water.

You are completely wrong, recovering an artifact from a creek, stream or river is saving it as evidenced by the amount of broken ones I found, just as recovering them from fields being plowed and construction sites is saving them from being destroyed..... The creeks and streams I hunted and recovered artifacts from were in the woods miles from any developments, surrounded by open fields used for livestock, no plowed fields adjacent to them......I also had the owners permission to hunt there..................

 

[lostcauses]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

[
Yet it has nothing, nothing: to do with breaking a law to get an artifact. Stop BSing your selves.
You folks are not saving history, you are finding and taking an arrowhead.
If you are knowingly breaking them rules or laws, well what happens when you get caught ruining a red light, or a stop sign?? If you are breaking rules or laws, expect problems.

There is NO archaeological value in artifacts once they reach running water, none what so ever. Everything they were associated with is lost as they travel down stream. I know this because I took several of the nice pieces, a pipe and several points I found to the Archaeological department at the University to inquire about them, and was told by the head of the department that they were high quality. When I asked if there was a problem collecting them or if I should report where they were found he replied they had lost their archaeological value once they hit running water.

You are completely wrong, recovering an artifact from a creek, stream or river is saving it as evidenced by the amount of broken ones I found, just as recovering them from fields being plowed and construction sites is saving them from being destroyed..... The creeks and streams I hunted and recovered artifacts from were in the woods miles from any developments, surrounded by open fields used for livestock, no plowed fields adjacent to them......I also had the owners permission to hunt there..................

Take Utah. A bill sits in front of the Governor to stop any access of creeks and water ways with out permission from the surrounding land owner. It will stop fishing as well as any other activity on such with out the land owners permission.
Fun little law. More states will follow if this gets done.

You state; "I also had the owners permission to hunt there"
So what is the problem.
Is the state you are in, were the water ways are public land?? Is this by federal law or state law??
If so you did not have permission, and are breaking most likley state or federal laws.

If the land owner owns it, you have permission and it is lawful.

 

[Th3rty7]

Re: It's probably been asked before but.......

[
Yet it has nothing, nothing: to do with breaking a law to get an artifact. Stop BSing your selves.
You folks are not saving history, you are finding and taking an arrowhead.
If you are knowingly breaking them rules or laws, well what happens when you get caught ruining a red light, or a stop sign?? If you are breaking rules or laws, expect problems.

There is NO archaeological value in artifacts once they reach running water, none what so ever. Everything they were associated with is lost as they travel down stream. I know this because I took several of the nice pieces, a pipe and several points I found to the Archaeological department at the University to inquire about them, and was told by the head of the department that they were high quality. When I asked if there was a problem collecting them or if I should report where they were found he replied they had lost their archaeological value once they hit running water.

You are completely wrong, recovering an artifact from a creek, stream or river is saving it as evidenced by the amount of broken ones I found, just as recovering them from fields being plowed and construction sites is saving them from being destroyed..... The creeks and streams I hunted and recovered artifacts from were in the woods miles from any developments, surrounded by open fields used for livestock, no plowed fields adjacent to them......I also had the owners permission to hunt there..................

Take Utah. A bill sits in front of the Governor to stop any access of creeks and water ways with out permission from the surrounding land owner. It will stop fishing as well as any other activity on such with out the land owners permission.
Fun little law. More states will follow if this gets done.

You state; "I also had the owners permission to hunt there"
So what is the problem.
Is the state you are in, were the water ways are public land?? Is this by federal law or state law??
If so you did not have permission, and are breaking most likley state or federal laws.

If the land owner owns it, you have permission and it is lawful.

Hey Debbie Downer, what's the matter?