Explore the Issues:

Native Americans

Wildlife and Sportsmen

Oil and Gas Exploration

Protecting the Past

Interview with Rudy Mauldin Regional Special Agent for the Department of the Interior

Ken Verdoia: Rudy, let's begin with the simplest consideration for the average person sitting at home that is going to be watching our program. What is the greatest challenge to a law enforcement agent charged with protecting ancient sites? What makes the job so difficult?

Rudy Mauldin: In the State of Utah, BLM owns about 22 million acres. They manage about 22 million acres, that's actually about 48% of the state. Their uniform staff, when I first came, was 9…and over about 14 years they're now at 20, 21, I believe. But the criminal investigators, the special agents, such as myself, BLM actually has 3 now, and they are burdened with internals and felony level crimes. So most often, in the rural setting where you don't have an abundance of witnesses or people to bring an attention to crime, the attention to the crime it needs, or to report crime. It's just not available. So detectability in this rural areas is next to impossible. Also, there's a huge portion of Utah that is outrageously rural, and a lot of the country is inaccessible.

One of the things that has complicated the pursuit of this is the ATV traffic that comes in. It allows more accessibility. They can range farther out in less time. They can access country that they couldn't access before, walking and packing in. So it's just far more accessible, very few witnesses. This particular type of crime doesn't often leave trace evidence that's easy to follow. So it's complex.

Ken Verdoia: We're in a location right now, obviously rich in prehistory, in ancient legacies and yet you look around and you say this site which once was so much, now is virtually worthless. Why?

Rudy Mauldin: That is so true. The issue is you have a prehistoric site here, probably dual habitation from the basket maker time to the Pueblo time, that you had a tribe come in and live for a while, then leave for an extended period of time. The buildings collapse, another tribe comes in and rebuilds. So there is an outrageous amount of information here to study, both from the basket maker era and from the Pueblo I/II era. But what happens is they've come in, they have excavated the soft soil, they have pushed over the walls. They have defaced the, the rock bluffs, the pictographs are painted over, the petroglyphs are…chiseling has been added to them; it would be outrageously difficult, maybe impossible to come in and scientifically evaluate this site and get much benefit out of it because of the damage brought here by those that care less about the resource.

Ken Verdoia: In this area of Utah there's almost a great tradition of pot hunting. Does that make your job more difficult? Has is been complicated in the past when people feel they have a right to do this?

Rudy Mauldin: I would say yes. The casual looter or digger, the cases we've done in the past have most probably minimized their looting, probably stopped it in some areas. But the hard core looter, the hard core digger, often times they'll dig in the evenings, they'll quit digging with buddies, so that there is no one to betray them, if in fact, there ever is an investigative lead that points to them. They'll dig by themselves; it's made it quite difficult. The history here is…we're so remote, there's not a lot of entertainment in some of these areas. It becomes a pastime. It becomes a form of recreation. Whereas you have people bring a picnic basket and picnic and hunt arrowheads while someone else in the family may go dig a site. Just becomes an outing.

Ken Verdoia: Is there money to be made in the trafficking of illegally acquired artifacts? Pots? Baskets?

Rudy Mauldin: I would say yes, being real familiar with the black market price and then whenever I look at the price in some of the larger cities that market the artifacts. I see a substantial difference in price.

Ken Verdoia: You gave me an example of one basket that had been retrieved. Can you recall that for me, the value that was assigned to it after it had been forfeited?

Rudy Mauldin: Yeah, that was part of the, the old Shumway find. It was a cash of baskets. The basket group helped establish actually the market for baskets in the southwest, there were so many of those, pristine condition. That particular basket that we discussed was referred to as a fiddle, fiddler basket. It was in the shape of a violin and that was assessed at $126,000 back in the 1980's.

Ken Verdoia: You just introduced the name that brings us here, Earl Shumway. Regarded by the Department of Justice in Washington by the U.S. Attorney's office for Utah, by the Bureau of Land Management, as perhaps one of the most significant prosecutions ever undertaken under the antiquities laws of the United States of America. And you are uniquely credited as a person who was pivotal in making that acquisition. From your point, why was this case so important? Why is it reverberating throughout the nation?

Rudy Mauldin: Well, the significance of that case is showing up in other cases. The old Shumway case associated with this particular site was the case that established the use of DNA in archaeological investigation. The by-product of that was shortly after that, the forest service done a case at north Beaver mesa, around Moab, Utah area and the same process was used in that investigation, where they wound up with a multitude of indictments. So, they have taken the use of the DNA and archaeological investigation. They have applied it to other places and most certainly it's working. So, we have had a couple of indictments here, but it's branched out and because of the familiarity with that case. The prosecutor that handled that case, that particular type of investigative technique was applied to other investigations.

Ken Verdoia: Tell me the scenario in which you came across the DNA evidence in this case and what that evidence was.

Rudy Mauldin: To start with, let me back up just enough to say that this was actually a joint effort. I did find the evidence, but the truth of the matter is, it was Division of Wildlife Resource, one of their investigators that led us to this facility. It was their patrolability in this area that, that got us here in the first place. It was their good law enforcement techniques that got us here. When my partner and I came here, this cave site was assessed a number of times. The crime scene was done and redone because we were unable to come up with something usable to say the digging occurred when Earl was here. We had to answer that question because there's no violation against being here. So, I re-excavated the areas that Earl had excavated. In search of something left behind, some physical clue, and basically came up short.

When I began to refurbish the area, put things back where they belong, I began to sift the tailings pile that he had dug. Within the tailings pile, I found one cigarette butt. The unique thing about the cigarette butt was when we found it I took a soil sample above the cigarette butt and below the cigarette butt to determine moisture content in the soil and carbon content, so that we could conclusively say that it had went in the tailings pile at the time that was dug. The soil content was the same above as it was below. So, the cigarette butt had to go into that at the time that was being dug.

Ken Verdoia: You find a cigarette butt. The entire prosecution seems to turn on that cigarette butt, is that the case?

Rudy Mauldin: It did in this case. There actually was evidence in the scene that was conclusive evidence that wasn't recognized 'till after the fact, but the cigarette butt became the key. It facilitated search warrants for blood from two of the suspects and we did get a match with Earl on that particular butt. Now, not all people would secrete or slobber might be a better word. So, there is a percentage of possibility of failure, but we were fortunate in that he was one of those and we were able to get DNA out of that cigarette butt.

Ken Verdoia: The United States has had antiquities protection laws for 100 years, in fact this is the anniversary year and they have not always prosecuted those laws. Those laws have not been actively enforced. Why is it important? Why does this matter? Why does any of this matter?

Rudy Mauldin: There's a couple things your question brings forth. One is, there was a curing process for the prosecution branch to help them understand the significance and the importance of protection of this antiquities and the culture, and so there was a number of trips devised to bring those people forth and to show them the sites and show them the pictographs and the petroglyphs and to make it more real for those people that would be handling those cases and consequently that was very effective. The United States Attorney's office intent, the judicial district is, from my perspective probably one of the most successful prosecutorial groups. They've done a large number of indictments. They're not bashful about pursuing these cases. They do an exceptionally good job. They understand the archeological perspective, site significance, site interest, in a way that they can represent it to a jury fully, so that they have understanding. So, it makes prosecution easier.

The second part that I'd like to address is…in spite of what you see here, in spite of what people say is important or unimportant about this site, it's inherently wrong and evil to dig up people and the riches that they're buried with. That's just simply wrong. Those, those have to be protected. It's no different than someone exhuming someone right out of your family. They have a right to remain where they rest. They should not be disinterred.