Second suicide in Indian artifact theft case

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Last Friday, a second alleged Indian artifact thief turned up dead in an apparent suicide. Steven L. Shrader, 56, appeared to have shot himself twice in the chest behind an elementary school in Shabbona, Ill., where he had gone to visit his mother.

Shrader was one of 24 defendants indicted in the much-criticized FBI sting of alleged archaeological thieves in the Southwest. Federal agents said that during the two-and-a-half year investigation, a confidential source purchased 250 illegal artifacts, such as sacred prayer sticks and Yucca blankets, that were collected on public land or Indian land in violation of federal laws.

But the crackdown on June 10, which included hundreds of agents and a SWAT team, has drawn the wrath of Utah senators and local residents, who claim the federal government used excessive force to capture mere hobbyists. The day after the raid, James Redd, a 60-year-old Utah doctor charged with a single felony, killed himself via carbon monoxide poisoning. Last week, Scientific Americaninterviewed 60-year-old defendant, Brent Bullock, who said he may be “guilty” of arrowhead collecting, but he certainly hadn’t “turned a shovel in [his] life.”

Shrader, a Santa Fe, N.M. resident, faces two felonies for allegedly trafficking ancient sandals and a basket along with Vern Crites, 74, Marie Crites, 68, and Richard Bourret, 59.  But court papers paint him as a peripheral figure, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. Whereas Vern Crites was allegedly videotaped digging up a Pueblo Indian gravesite last September, Shrader had simply joined his friend on a hike and an arrowhead hunt around Disappointment Valley in Colorado, a region dotted with both public and private land.  When contacted by the newspaper, Crites said, “I don’t know why [Shrader] was charged even. . . . I don’t think he did anything wrong.”

Image of arrowhead courtesy Mr. T in DC via Flickr

Brendan Borrell is a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. He writes for Bloomberg Businessweek, Nature, Outside, Scientific American, and many other publications, and is the co-author (with ecologist Manuel Molles) of the textbook Environment: Science, Issues, Solutions. He traveled to Brazil with the support of the Mongabay Special Reporting Initiative. Follow him on Twitter @bborrell.

More by Brendan Borrell

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe