I have worked on and directed data recovery projects in several
urban areas on the mainland, in Hawaii, and in Guam.  The issue of
pothunting, with or without metal detectors, before, during, and after these
projects has come up several times.  Most recently it emerged in Honolulu.
We designed as thorough a data recovery project as was possible.  Included
in this plan were provisions to protect the site from potential looters
before we were actually on site as well as during our stay on it -
approximately three months.  We knew before we started through informants
that some of the hunters were going to try to get onto the property.  Hence,
with the cooperation of the client, the State Historic Preservation
Division, and other agencies, we took preventive action - primarily a high
fence and a 24 hour guard.  There was no incident before or during the data
recovery.
        It was and is my personal and professional feeling that when we were
done, i.e. when we had compeleted our field data recovery operations, we
were finished.  We had done all we could have and any further operations
would have been redundant and been an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.
 Other than having a staff archaeologist on site during excavation for the
future building's below ground parking facility to insure that no additional
human skeletal remains or significant features (we defined these very
carefully for we had recovered all the known ones during data recovery), we
released the site.
        We knew, however, that the "hunters", some of whom were on the
construction crew, had been seeking permission to collect materials after we
finished data recovery.  We discussed the situation with State, City/County
agencies, and the client. We all concurred that we had fulfilled our legal,
ethical, and moral obligations in gathering information, reporting it, and
affording protection to the recovered materials.  Beyond that we could not
go, especially since the site was to be 100 percent destroyed.  We decided
that we could not give approval for any hunting that might take place after
the data recovery was concluded, and that we could and did express
disapproval, but neither could we justifiably prevent public access.
        I personally saw no reason to; we had done our job.  In this, I may
be out of sync with many of my colleagues.  There is a real world practical
result that seems to derive from this position; if the professional
"hunters/looters" know that they might - and I stress might -- have access
to discarded back dirt or to sites slated for total destruction (as mine
was) after the archaeologists have completed their work, they might leave
such sites alone before hand and wait until we are finished.
        I am totally opposed to looting archaeological sites and completely
support tough prosecution, fines, and jail for looters - even heavier than
those currently on the books.  But, when we have have completed data
recovery operations on a site and when the remainder of site is going to be
completely destroyed, it is no longer a significant archaeological site.
Through data recovery, we captured the significance, removed it, and
preserved it elsewhere.  In such situations where my two conditions obtain
(we have done data recovery; the site is to be destroyed), what possible
justification do we as archaeologists have to prevent the public from having
access to our leavings?
        I am sure that this position will provoke varying degrees of outrage
among some colleagues while others, privately if not publicly, will have
varying degrees of concurrance.
>