A recent reader submission to The Spectrum’s editorial department raised several questions regarding the legality and practice of the collection of prehistoric artifacts—specifically gathering arrowheads from the ground surface. We hope to offer readers some clarity regarding this issue.

Federal law prohibits removing arrowheads or any other cultural resources from public land under penalty of law for theft.  Even though the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) exempted arrowheads from the penalties section, there are many other laws that prohibit collection of any cultural artifacts. Violation of these laws could subject individuals to criminal prosecution. Most important of these laws is United States Code 641, which covers the theft of government property.

Putting the full spectrum of criminal prosecution for theft aside, casual collecting may seem inconsequential, but the impact of any type of collecting can be crippling to science and research efforts. In order to piece together the big picture and gain a firm understanding of the history of prehistoric cultures, scientists rely not only on studying the artifacts themselves, but the locations in which they lie. A high percentage of sites in the Great Basin, for example, are the result of transient hunting and gathering activities which occurred over some 10,000 years. Many of these transient hunting sites are small, and represent only temporary use; even the larger sites usually show only surface or very shallow deposits.  These variables make extracting information from sites very difficult. 

Like clothes and hairstyles, arrowhead styles changed through time.  Scientists rely on these markers to date a site.  The type of stone used for the point can help us understand where people had traveled and artifact placement shows where activities occurred in the past.  Just one visit from an enthusiastic collector can virtually destroy the information potential of a small site, just as repeated visits to more substantial sites leaves devastating results.  In a very real sense then, stripping a surface site is the equivalent of digging other site types.  In fact, approximately 90% of the Anasazi structural sites in Washington County have been damaged by illicit digging, with percentages just as high for sites compromised by surface collection activities in Beaver and Iron Counties.

Archeological sites are a significant portion of the finite, non-renewable, and rapidly disappearing cultural resources found in the United States. When artifacts vanish, we experience a loss even beyond the priceless natural resources - vital pieces of US history and precious educational opportunities are lost forever to generations today and tomorrow as well.

Byron Loosle
BLM Utah Archeologist