Archaeologists, courts debate artifacts' value [ Theft of petroglyphs raises questions... ]

In a case with ramifications for archaeological treasures across the West, the Justice Department is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that freed two men convicted of stealing ancient petroglyphs in Nevada. "There is a good deal at stake here," said Sherry Hutt, a former Superior Court judge from Arizona who has written books on the subject and now heads a related program at the National Park Service... Hutt, who manages a Park Service program under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, said the concerns are valid. "Essentially, the government must prove the defendant knew this was an archaeological resource and knew the actual scientific benefit -- which essentially says only archaeological scientists could be convicted in such a case," she said.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

This is why I am a legalist/absolutist. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is what I grew up under; and as far as I'm concerned, "intent" is a Liberal cop-out, to excuse leftists purposely breaking the law "for the higher good".

Perhaps, intent can be useful at sentencing; but not for guilt/innocence questions...PERHAPS.

You stole it; it was protected public property, on public land: neither your "intent", nor the monetary value, mean anything.

The snapping point on this was an Oregon theft case, where the theif was found 'not guilty', becasue the prosecution could not PROVE the thief "meant to" permanently appropriate an expensive ring to his own possession. He had broken in; stolen the ring; pawned the ring; spent the money...then told the court he "intended" to redeem the ring and return it at a future date: THEREFORE, according to Oregon higher courts, he had NOT stolen the ring, but had "only" borrowed it without permission.

If these yahoos could convince the court they "intened" to put the boulders back,after displaying them in their yard for awhile, under that "intent" assininity, they would again be 'not guilty'.

The Ninth Circus has again committed legal mayhem, this time to our national heritage and future understanding of our past.

Of course, preserving them in museums would get a bunch of knickers in a twist (NAGPRA), so, it's just TFB. Artifacts left out in the open may wind up in private collections, where the handful of people who have ever seen them in situ will be unable to see them or even know where they are.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.