By Alison McFerrin

The Selma Times-Journal

Selma’s history is one of its most prized possessions, but soon, anyone may have the ability to take some historical artifacts for their own.

According to Alabama House Bill 104, “It shall be lawful to recover abandoned artifacts which are not cultural resources as defined in this division from submerged lands that are under navigable rivers in this state.”

The new law would exclude divers from keeping artifacts related to shipwrecks. However, the narrowed definition of ‘cultural resources’ would exclude many other artifacts important to Selma’s history.

“The bill will allow relic hunters to carry away Civil War, early American and Native American artifacts from Alabama’s rivers,” wrote Mayor George Evans in a letter to state senators Bobby Singleton and Hank Sanders, opposing the legislation.

This subject became an issue after an incident in Selma in 2003, when a diver was arrested for taking historical items from the Alabama River and selling them.

An act was put in place in 2006 requiring permits for underwater archaeological excavation. H.B. 104 would amend the current law.

“Resources in state waters should be afforded the same protections as treasures found on state lands,” Evans wrote.

Old Depot Museum curator Jean T. Martin said some of the artifacts not protected by the proposed legislation might include guns, shells, ammunition and weapons of war.

“These artifacts … these are our history, the history of different times, different periods — absolute proof of things that have happened,” Martin said. “If they are taken and sold for profit, which is what would happen to most of them, that’s wrong, and you lose that history.

“In other words, it’s part of Alabama’s history, and it should be illegal to take it away to sell it or destroy it.”

The legislation has already passed the House. It also passed the Senate’s Governmental Affairs Committee with an amendment, and it’s currently pending a third reading on the Senate floor. If passed by the Senate, it will go back to the House for approval of the amendment.

“The law does not need to be amended,” Evans wrote, saying the 2006 legislation already in existence “is working.”