SITE DESTRUCTION IN LATIN AMERICA:

SOME DESCRIPTIONS AND PROPOSALS

Karen 0. Bruhns

California State University

at San Francisco

The problems of American archaeology in terms of site
destruction are not limited to North America, but rather

encompass the entire Western Hemisphere. In the United States,
a disinterested government, rampant urbanization (or rather,

suburbanization), and a small but active group of "pothunters"
have created a situation in which it is estimated there will

not be a single undisturbed site left within twenty years. The
case is much the same in Latin America but with some peculiar
local twists tied into local politics and economics and into

the fact that the Latin American civilizations were much richer
in elaborate artifacts than those of North America. One of the
major Latin American problems is the burgeoning market in

antiquities in the United States and Europe (there is a local

market too, but it is much smaller and poorer). The fashion for
having ancient artifacts as status symbols has reached a new
high and has trickled down to others than the very wealthy.
As the demand goes up so do prices and new sources of more

exotic and cheaper objects are sought. What this has meant is

a wholesale invasion of South and Central America by antiquities
dealers to fill the new demand.

113

Coupled with this invasion by foreign dealers has been the

enactment by more and more Latin American governments of stringent
antiquities laws which, in the abstract, are meant to protect the
ngtional patrimony against foreign collectors. However,,.the laws

are mainly enforced against foreign archaeologists, not antiquities
dealers, since the latter do not usually operate through

legitimate channels. What this has meant in practical terms is
that the destruction of ancient sites for salable artifacts is
accelerating rapidly at a time when the amount of scientific

excavation, necessarily largely done by foreigners since there
is usually a lack of trained local personnel or local funding,
has been slowing down or, in some countries, totally stopped.

Neither of these problems can be readily solved. Antiquities
laws are needed; it is unfortunate that they are. mainly enforced
against the only group the local government has any control over:
the foreign archaeologists. By and large, foreigners lack the
knowledge of the local situation or the personal influence

needed to sidestep or bend rules enough to be allowed to dig.
Although some of the problems could be overcome with joint

projects between a foreigner and a local archaeologist, these

projects are difficult to fund, even when they could be arranged.

The antiquities market is another matter. There has been

a spate of publicity in the popular press about looting and what
this means in terms of destruction of knowledge. Hopefully
this publicity will reach some people who will find a more

114

acceptable outlet for their interest in antiquities. These
outlets do exist and are being further expanded: local and

national archaeological socieites, using non-professionals on,
digs, and so on. But we cannot turn a fashion overnight and
the only solution on a short term basis would be to make it

vary hard for people to obtain antiquities to decorate their
walls and coffee tables.

To control the antiquities market it is necessary to know
how it works and where to apply pressure. So far most action
against antiquities dealing has been on a rather otherworldly

plane and has not been outstandingly successful. In the areas
in which I have worked the antiquities trade is rather neatly
graded and each level offers its own possibilities of the

control of looting, if not its eradication. Local situations
do vary in detail, but the systems of extracting and vending

artifacts seem to be roughly similar over much of Latin America.

On the rock bottom level are the local people, the farmers,
rural laborers, road workers, and so on. These are the people
who make many of the finds. In the course of their ordinary
work, antiquities are uncovered and there are probably few

places in the world today where the locals are so unsophisticated
that they do not know where there is cash for an attractive

artifact. If a nice cache is uncovered, a cemetary or similar
site, the peasant may stop his regular work to extract as much
as possible . In the past probably the majority of finds

115

occurred in this casual manner, but as the demand (and the price)
for antiquities gets higher the locals may do a little less

farming and a little more treasure hunting. This has been the

situation for a long time in areas where it was generally known
that ancient sites contained gold and has become much more

common as pots.and bits of stone become more valuable than gold.
In central Colombia, for example, almost every adult male does a
little guaqueria on the side and a few people are almost

totally professionals (Bruhns 1972). The same is true in

coastal Peru where a bit of pothunting is a common source of
ready cash to the campesinos.

In most areas of Latin America there are also local collectors,
usually people of the middle or upper class; people who for one
reason or another got interested in the prehistory of the area
and started to gather artifacts. Many of these people are

fairly well aware of the aims of archaeology and make a point of
collecting data with their antiquities, others simply collect
and ask no questions. As the monetary values of these things
go up some of the local collectors become small time dealers.
They hire farmers to dig up areas for them or they have

arrangements with specific farmers or guaqueros to sell to them
first. In their turn the collectors sell what they do not want
to other collectors or to more commercial antiquities dealers.
Many places also have people who are only dealers. These

organize the local talent in the same way as the collectors,

116

although usually on a more strictly commercial basis. These
small local dealers then resell either to bigger dealers in
the main cities, to museums, or to foreign dealers from the

United States and Europe. Antiquities dealing on this level
is a very profitable business, involving little risk and a

good returm on an investment. A vessel from, say, the Moche
culture of northern Peru that the farmer or guaquero is paid

fifty cents for will be passed on from anywhere between $5 and
$50 or more. It will end up being sold in New York or London

or Geneva for several hundreds more than that. Where the gains
are large enough the big city dealer may be bypassed and direct

contact set up between locals and foreigners. A good example of
this sort of thing is in the Maya area of Mexico and Guatemala
where Americans and Europeans have set up large, well organized
invasions of sites using local people as workers. They go into
a site, slice up the monuments, quickly tear through the mounds
and remove anything that looks worthwhile and then remove their
loot directly by plane or ship to the United States. Very

recently some enterprising Americans have set up much the same
business in northern Colombia where the prehispanic Tairona
culture produced gold and stone artifacts currently much in

vogue. The entrepreneur engages workmen through local sources,
sites are efficiently located and stripped and the artifacts

removed by the boatload to American ports. From there they are
vended to art galleries, museums, antique stores anld the like.

117

In Latin America itself most larger cities have dealers in
antiquities who are purely commercial and who act as full time
middlemen. They have regular (and casual) contacts throughout
their area and country and in turn sell to urban collectors,
museums, tourists and foreign dealers.

Aside from the big dealers, in whose hands the international
trade and the whole business of getting the things out of their

country of origin largely rests, there are two other sources for
antiquities on the world market: the diplomatic corps and the

Peace Corps. Both American and local diplomats are involved in
smuggling out antiquities. Sometimes these are for thei- own

collections but a fair number of these people are well known to
dealers, especially as sources of valuable and portable items
like ancient jewelry and textiles. Since diplomats are not

subject to customs regulation they form an excellent channel

for objects which might be difficult to get through governmental
barriers.

The Peace Corps is another matter entirely. Probably a

large number of Volunteers do a little pot hunting as recreation.
After all, in many of the areas in which they are stationed

everyone they meet does some and most of these young people see
nothing wrong with their activities. In most cases they do

little damage and simply come home with a few souvenirs which
they might sell if they needed the money. Unfortunately a few
Peace Corpsmen seem to have gotten into the trade in a big way.

118

One of the largest collections of pottery and gold from the

northern Andes to appear on the market in the past few years
was being vended by a Peace Corps Volunteer with an eye to
making money out of his tour of duty.

The Peace Corps could probably be controlled even if the
diplomatic corps cannot (smuggling by diplomats seems to be
one of the bigger headaches of the various law enforcing

bodies in all countries). Very likely some serious talk about

why they should not tear up sites and an occasional disciplinary
action would work wonders. Most of these people simply do not

realize they are being destructive (even in a minor way) and those
who go into antiquities gathering on a large scale could be
stepped on.

The possibility of control exists with some of the other
groups, although not on the very bottom level. By and large,
the actual work is done by poor people who need money. There
is also the whole hidden treasure complex in much of Latin

America and in a system of limited good there probably always

will be. No amount of legislation is going to stop a poor man
from looking for his chance out. Also, these people do find
things by accident. They are involved with working the soil.
In earlier days the things they found were simply recycled:

pots were reused, cut stone was used in erecting new buildings,
etc. If they could not sell things any longer they would

probably go back to using them. A cutback in their imm?ediate

119

market would, however, have the effect of stopping planned
looting of sites in areas where there is no gold.

The local collectors could, perhaps he regulated. Most

countries do have laws about the registration of collections.

These laws do not work because they are not enforced or because
it is too much trouble or it is too expensive to register a
collection (one country demands several photographs of each

piece in a collection upon registration; the cost of photography
alone makes it impossible for many people with large collections

to register them). Also, a registered collection is not one that
cannot be liquidated for quick cash and it is a collection that
could be taxed. Considering the disadvantages to a collector
it is no wonder that no one obeys the law unless he is forced
to or is more public spirited than most.

The only hope of control of the wholesale looting that is
now going on seems to lie in cutting out the huge profits

made by the middlemen. There will always be local collectors

and the great majority of these are not too destructive. It is
the high commercial value of artifacts that lies directly

behind the devastation of archaeological sites in Latin America.
Control could be effected by enforcing the laws which most
countries already have about getting permits to export

antiquities, jail sentences for smuggling, etc. Unfortunately,
this would probably only further blacken the black market.

The only people who regularly apply for permits to export are

120

legimate archaelogists; nobody else bothers. Even when these

people get caught they usually have enough influence to escape
any sanctions; dealers very seldom end up in jail.

Since the really immense profits start coming in on the

international scale it might be possible to regulate the trade
on this level, where local influence would have less effect.
At this point the only feasible route is by a combination of
taxation within the country of sale and treaties with the

country of origin. A really heavy personal property tax on
antiquities would cut out a lot of would be collectors.

A punitive sales tax, for which precedents exist (tobacco and
alcohol) would have much the same effect.

In terms of treaties, the United States did recently sign
one with Mexico and it has already been invoked. What would
make it more effective would be some teeth: jail sentences
and heavy fines for. both the vendors and buyers. The only

problem is that treaties would have to be enacted among all
the countries which participate in the antiquities trade.

Even now much of the trade in American antiquities is switching

to Europe, just as our government is beginning to act. If, say,
England and Germany are the scenes of most of the buying and
selling, then no number of treaties on our part will stop the
traffic. There is, of course, the United Nations, but in

twenty odd years they do not seem to have gotten past the Elgin
marbles .

121

As the present situation stands there is no hope for

archaeology. Too many factors enter this situation: local

values structures, local poverty, national and international
politics, the desire for quick profits on all sides, and

current fashion which decrees that it is chic to have an artifact
or two or two hundred standing around. Archaeology has neither
the political power nor the internal cohesiveness to push for
any changes in the international scene. All we can do is to

continue to make as much noise as possible and in the meantime
settle down to salvage as much as we can.

Reference cited:
Bruhns, K.C.

1972 The methods of guaqueria: illicit tomb looting in

Colombia. Archaeology Volume 25, no. 2, pp. 140-
143. New York.

122