The Dinosaur Fossil Wars
Across the American West, legal battles over dinosaur fossils are on the rise as amateur prospectors make major finds
- By Donovan Webster
- Photographs by Aaron Huey
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2009, Subscribe
Fossil prospector Ron Frithiof (with a mosasaur from his collections) was sued over a T. rex that he uncovered. "This whole experience," he says, "has been a disaster." Aaron Huey
Editor’s note: On August 6, 2009, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling that Ron Frithiof did not engage in fraud and that he and his team can retain ownership rights of Tinker the Tyrannosaurus . For more on this story and other dinosaur-related news, read our Dinosaur Tracking blog.
Buried beneath a barren stretch of South Dakota badland, the deceased appeared small for its species. As Ron Frithiof, an Austin, Texas, real-estate developer turned dinosaur prospector, dug cautiously around it in a rugged expanse of backcountry, he was growing increasingly confident that he and his partners were uncovering a once-in-a-lifetime find.
Ever since he had heard about a private collection going up for sale in the mid-1990s, Frithiof, now 61, had been hunting dinosaurs. "I'd thought fossils were things you could see only in museums," he says. "When I learned you could go out and find stuff like that, to keep or even to sell, it just lit a fire in my imagination. I studied every book I could, learned techniques of extraction. Fossils inspire a powerful curiosity."
Frithiof was keenly aware that the skeleton of a mature Tyrannosaurus rex ( "Sue," named in honor of prospector Sue Hendrickson, who made the find in western South Dakota in 1990) had been auctioned off—at Sotheby's in New York City in 1997—for more than $8 million. The specimen that Frithiof and his fellow excavators began unearthing in 1998, in a painstaking, inch-by-inch dig was about four feet tall, less than half Sue's height. With unfused vertebrae and scrawny shin and ankle bones, the skeleton was almost certainly that of a juvenile. If so, it would likely be the most complete young T. rex ever discovered. A find of this magnitude, Frithiof knew, would create a sensation. Its value would be, as he put it, "anyone's guess." $9 million? $10 million? This was uncharted territory.
For nearly three years, the excavators—including longtime fossil hunter Kim Hollrah, who had first investigated the site—continued their meticulous work. Whenever Frithiof, Hollrah and their companions could coordinate time off from work, they would drive 24 hours straight, from Texas to the dig site, north of Belle Fourche, South Dakota, which Frithiof had leased from a local rancher in 1998. "Most years, we'd spend about a month working," he recalls. "Thirty or 40 days a summer, before the weather would drive us off."
Braving blistering 100-degree temperatures, the crew took every precaution to keep the specimen intact. At the same time, they were attempting to wrest it from the ground before South Dakota's brutal winter set in. "That's one of the paradoxes of fossil collecting," says Frithiof. "Once a specimen is exposed to the elements, it's a race to get it out in as responsible a way as possible, to protect it from wind and rain and weathering. It's like a slow-motion race."
Paleontological excavation is nothing if not grueling. "We worked inch by inch, brushing bits of rock and soil away, taking a pin to strip away just that next little bit of rock and earth [to reveal the rough contours]," Frithiof told me. On a good day, an experienced fossil excavator might uncover only a few inches of skeleton. Frithiof and the others gingerly pried out each section, still enclosed in the crumbly chunk of rock matrix that had originally surrounded it. In preparation for transport, the prospectors then wrapped the sections in layers of tissue paper, aluminum foil and plaster.
As the dig moved forward, Frithiof's colleagues, with a nod to "Sue" (today a centerpiece attraction at Chicago's Field Museum), decided the new T. rex needed a name. The one they came up with honored Frithiof's role as the project's financial backer. "I don't know why my parents started calling me Tinker," says Frithiof. "Somehow, it stuck."
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Law Dinosaurs Fossils Money Mesozoic Era American West Underground
| Tweet | Digg |






Comments (32)
+ View All Comments
as usual more gov. regs. to muck up our lives! God forbid a private citizen might find something lost for millions of years and be allowed to keep it.I myself have found a Mossasaur skull in texas! in the middle of nowhere! I now know the skull is not on the private land i had permission to dig on.It took me two years to dig it up! i now find out i can be jailed for digging it! Well it will stay were i left it. Very doubtful it will ever be found again! Most likely it will be destroyed by Windmill construction. i guess the "gov." knows best. Better we all sit on the couch get fat and watch "reality" tv. to lazy to get out and do anything ourselves! too much gov. think about that when u vote for a Dem.
Posted by yankee on February 5,2012 | 01:44 PM
I have a dinosaur fossil that my uncle had given to me when I was a kid. I am looking for information on what the different options are for me to do with it.
Posted by Jen on February 3,2012 | 03:10 PM
i found a bone a few years ago and really need to no if its a dino bone.i found it near a creek bed.in georgia in the okfanokee swamp.its on about 12 inches long and curved.its looks like rib bone of some type.the bone is really fossilize.so if any body can help me let me no.
Posted by stil_bill on December 27,2011 | 03:23 PM
my husband FOUND AN SKELETON OF DINOSAUR . WE REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD GUIDE US TO FINE CUSTOMER or give us some advice for selling it. ITS NOT JUST TOOTH OR SKIN ITS A REAL TYREX AROUND 1.5 METER.
thanks
Posted by sogand on August 9,2011 | 03:31 AM
I know a nice solution. Fossil dealers and paleontologists could explore together. If the fossil is not scientifically signifigant, it gets put up for sale. If it is signifigant, it goes to a museum and a cast is made, which is produced and sold.
Posted by Not Telling on March 20,2011 | 06:21 AM
Private Ownership of fossils should not be banned, and if it is, fossils obtained before the ban should not be confiscated.
Posted by Not Telling on March 17,2011 | 03:30 AM
Can anyone help me I wanted to no where I can bring a fossil/tooth to get it check out and maybe sale it in the bay area. I bought a box of quartz from a old time gold miner and found a piece in there that looks like a fossil or mybe a dinosaur tooth thanks
Posted by matt on October 16,2010 | 08:09 AM
I also found some dinosaur skin not far from the previsous bones in a block of sandstone.
check it out at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUs4z88ruI
There is no way I will show it to a paleontologist. I'd rather have a amateur come dig it up. The dino skin piece that I have has been touched by many children who are in awe. That doesn't happen in museums. If anybody is going to be famous for this find, it isn't going to be a so called professional.
Posted by SpectateSwamp on December 25,2009 | 10:22 AM
I videoed some dino bones in a block of stone a few years back. I returned the next year to video what new fossils were exposed. The old ones were long gone. I should have exposed the under layers. Rock in areas that erode should be removed if at all possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZBixDl1gc
View the video
Posted by Spectate Swamp on October 10,2009 | 09:52 PM
i need to know how archiologists know how old bones and fossils are.
Posted by anna holcombe on September 3,2009 | 10:52 AM
What's the current status of this case?
Posted by Sue Misner on July 20,2009 | 02:11 PM
I do not have a problem with private citizens finding, claiming, exposing, digging and removing (with land owner's permission, otherwise it's theft) any fossil they find. Even if they sell it, or put it up for auction. Isn't that what a Paleontologist does when he finds a fossil? OK, call it grant money, call it donating it to a museum (who buy and sell fossils routinely) but the Paleontologist (not to mention Archeologists and Primatologists) are not above paying their mortgage on sold artifacts.
Posted by Christopher Wood on June 2,2009 | 12:34 AM
I was looking forward to your feature on the Dinosaur Wars, as I believe that the present conflict between academic and commercial paleontology is an important subject worthy of thoughtful debate. Unfortunately, I was, for the most part, disappointed with the piece. To start with, there were some rather glaring factual errors. I should begin with the designation of myself as a “paleontologist” in the photo caption on page 51. Although I have well over a decade of field experience in the Hell Creek Formation and I teach paleontology at a community college; I do not have a higher degree in paleontology and as a result many folks would have a problem ascribing me that title. Secondly, the assertion that Tinker was “about four feet tall,” is not even close. Tinker’s dentary (the tooth-bearing part of the lower jaw) measures well over 15 inches, which is significantly longer than the dentary of the Burpee Museum’s tyrannosaur, Jane. Jane is 21 feet long and 7.5 feet tall at the hip. It is not unreasonable to predict that Tinker would have been closer to 25 feet long and over 8 feet tall at the hip. Finally, it is implied in the article that Kim Hollrah discovered the Tinker site. This is not true. Mark Eatman discovered the site. Kim Hollrah ran the excavation for Ron Frithiof.
Beyond the factual errors, this article had more than a few misleading implications. In his seemingly brief EBay investigation, the author says that “Very little was disclosed about where any of the fossils came from.” The clear implication being that these fossils must therefore have been collected or exported illegally. A more thorough investigation would have discovered that this is far from the truth. In that same paragraph, the author quotes Carrano saying that “If a fossil being sold there comes from Morocco, China, Mongolia, Argentina of a number of other nations, at some point it was part of an illegal process, since those countries don’t allow commercial fossil export.” This is not entirely accurate as it is perfectly legal to export invertebrates from Morocco as long as a Moroccan has worked on the fossil (thus the high frequency of polished ammonites and other fossil mollusks from Morocco.)
What bothered me more than the inadequate fact checking was the general tenor of this article. Rather than dealing with the complex reality of this subject, the author chose to present some of the more extreme views of the two sides. This has a rather polarizing affect, which I suspect will satisfy neither academics nor commercial/amateur collectors. More importantly, this kind of hyperbolic debate is not good for the science of paleontology. There is no doubt that there are some real problems with fossil poaching. I have personally had to deal with trespassing commercial poachers at our sites. It is also true that the introduction of big money (Sue) has permanently changed the rubric of vertebrate paleontology. But these are complicated issues. For instance, would that Therizinosaur ever have been discovered, had Larry Walker not poached it? [By the way, the Larry Walker story is much more complicated than portrayed in this article and is, in my opinion, a case study in what is dysfunctional about the relationship between the academics and commercial/amateur collectors.] As for the big money, I’m sure there are many bankrupt former commercial fossil operators that will attest to the fact that the “big money” is more perception than reality. But instead of working through these murky waters, the author chose to quote incendiary descriptions of commercial diggers as “cowboys” that destructively “harvest” sites. This kind of language perpetuates stereotypes and further divides the greater paleontology community.
Posted by Rob Sula on May 8,2009 | 04:05 PM
I noticed there seems to be little discussion on what coordinate system that is being used to define the boundary between the land owner and the government. I think that initially the USGS (United States Geological Survey) did the boundaries using triangulation. There should be notes on their work filed with the USGS. If the government is now using GPS there will most likely be a difference. It could be 1200 to 1400 ft. different. They should check the lots of the buildings/houses and streets of the nearest town. If they are off more than 100 ft then why should they be using GPS. The town is not going to be moved because of the more accurate readings. I would check their triangulation notes too. They could be off by more than 100 ft. Henry H. Bretthauer
Posted by Henry H. Bretthauer on May 6,2009 | 02:33 PM
+ View All Comments