Kentucky artifact Legality, questions.

[orari]

waterglass wrote:

thanks Painshill, As I said the article that stated this was in a monthly magazine called "Kentucky Living" I read a PDF on the subject,  I am no expert at parcing legalese. It seemed to focus mainly on public land.
I am supposed to talk to Christina Pappas from UK on Monday about my sites.

  I am something of an expert on parsing legalese.  I would very much like to see a copy of what you read.  My instincts tell me that there is something not quite correct about what the PDF writer wrote or in your understanding of it.  If you could get me a copy, I could clear up the issue fast---most likely.

[orari]

clovisoid wrote:

I lived and hunted for several years in Kentucky, from my understanding you don't have to report anything on private land.  It's encouraged, but not a requirement unless you find disturbed unmarked graves or human remains.
My view, if you don't own the property you shouldn't file a site registration report unless the land owner consents.  Right now it doesn't encumber the land, but who knows in the future.  Also, no archaeologist really needs to know about a site where you found two arrowheads.  They should know about big sites, villages, paleo kills, etc.  You'd be hardpressed to find an acre of ground in many parts of Kentucky where there isn't some evidence of ancient people.

  I would kindly and respectfully disagree.  Most of the archaeologists I have ever known are interested in all archaeological sites---no matter how great or small.  I sure am.  Wherever our ancient brothers and sisters stopped (whether for 2 minutes or 2000 years) is important to me, and I think they would like to be remembered by that single dropped arrowhead.  Well, that's just me.  Others may feel differently, and I accept that. 

[orari]

Okay.  here is what Waterglass was primarily concerned about.  The magazine is not Kentucky Life.  It is instead Kentucky Living.  Here is the URL for the article he read:

http://www.kentuckyliving.com/flint-arrowheads-often-found-in-kentucky-fields/

Dave Pollack was right about the provision in the Kentucky Antiquities Act.  I looked it up, and it states the following:
164.730 Report discovery.

Any person who discovers an archaeological site or object of antiquity in the course of  construction work or otherwise shall report such discovery to the department.
This is what is defined as a "procedural provision" of law.  The thing Dave Pollack fails to mention to the magazine reporter is that there are NO criminal penalties (meaning fines or imprisonment) for failing to report a newly or oldly found archaeological site on privately owned land in Kentucky.  So, yes, reporting a site is required by law, but no one can fine you or put you in jail if you do not report it.  This explains why every farmer, artifact collector, Boy Scout, and grandma flower gardener in Kentucky is not in jail or bankrupt.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I see quite a bit of this "dispensing of information" combined with "withholding key information" among professional archaeologists when they should be providing the public with COMPLETE information about CRM laws.
I am not going to assume any motives here one way or another---but I am offering just three general thoughts:
1)  Most professional archaeologists (me included) would like members of the public to report all archaeological sites they know about so they can be recorded for posterity and future research.  Failure to mention that there is no penalty for failing to report a site tricks people into feeling bad things might happen to them if they do not report it.  The hope here is that everyone who knows of a site will get scared and report it.  Therefore, the state will get a lot more information for its site survey files than it otherwise would have if it had mentioned an absence of penalties.  I have not checked into it lately, but at one time, it was my understanding that state CRM agencies were allocated federal budget dollars on the basis of how many new sites are documented in the state each year.  Therefore, if the state survey booked 1000 sites last year---but they book 1500 sites this year---then they get more money this year to advance state archaeology for all Kentuckians---which is a good thing.
2)  A few archaeologists who are very enforcement minded (better term: firey-eyed zealot) would love you to report any new archaeological site you might find so they can ask you detailed questions and find an excuse to nail your butt to the wall.  Were you on this site with landowner permission to hunt for artifacts?  Can I have the landowner's phone number to verify that? Did you dig for any artifacts on this site?  Did you disturb any human bones or burials while digging for artifacts?  Three quarters of the site you were hunting is on private land, but did you know that the far southeast corner of that site is on Federally owned land---did you find any artifacts there?  Nice blades you brought in today---which TVA or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lake edge or bottom did you find these on?  Oh, you were creek walking---did you know USACE jurisdiction goes up 2000 ft from the confluence point along that creek?
3)  Fortunately, a goodly number of professional archaeologists I have known are reasonable people who are glad to have anyone (e.g., avocational archaeologist, artifact collector, farmer, average citizen, etc.) help them out by providing them with new archaeological information that will advance archaeological knowledge in their state---and they are grateful for it---and they are unlikely to bother such very helpful people with legal issues because they would like continued help, cooperation, and support across the coming years.  They will tell you that if you are going to search for artifacts, they hope you will keep it legal and do nothing beyond surface collecting---and most important of all---keep good records on what you find and where.  LOCATION and SPECIFIC CONTEXT are EVERYTHING in professional archaeology.  Without it, we know virtually nothing that we do not already know.  You say: "But my Big Sandy point has basal grinding on it---isn't that valuable information?"  No, not really.  So do a million other Big Sandy points.  The exact location where you found it is far more important.  Out-of-context artifacts by themselves on a table top have been studied to death for the past 150 years.  I am not saying that there is nothing left that can be learned from out-of-context artifacts on a table top.  What I am saying is that it is a only a thimble full of gasoline when it takes a full tank to move archaeology forward from what we already know---and that full tank is ALL ABOUT location and context..  That is why I was so happy when Obion reported his find to Bill Lawrence. 

[orari]

Dirt e Deeds wrote:

I think I would prefer to stay in the realm of questionable legality than people knowing where my sites are. I don't know your area laws but it seems odd to me.

  The State of Kentucky site survey records are closed to the general public---as they are in Tennessee.   If Waterglass reported his sites to the University of Kentucky, no other artifact collectors or average citizens would ever see the records or know that he reported the sites---not even the landowner most likely.  You can say:  "Well dang it.  If it's on my land and it has been reported to a state agency, then I have a legal right to know about it."  Not necessarily.  The fact that you have special knowledge about a place is more or less irrelevant.  People have knowledge about lots of places and things, and it is not illegal to possess that knowledge (unless it requires an official U.S. government security clearance and you do not have such clearance---but that almost never involves archaeological sites).  Having unclassified knowledge and passing it on to someone else is not illegal as long as it is true.
However, there is this.  I know of a mound site here in Tennessee.  What's left of it most likely has numerous stone box graves on it.  Everyone knows that.  However, given the possession of that knowledge, there is no way in Hades I would purchase that land to build something because of the legal menace and bad publicity associated with disturbing Native American burials--not to mention the costs of archaeology and burial removal.  I have no idea whether the owner knows that.

[clovisoid]

clovisoid wrote:

Also, no archaeologist really needs to know about a site where you found two arrowheads.

 

orari wrote:

I would kindly and respectfully disagree.  Most of the archaeologists I have ever known are interested in all archaeological sites---no matter how great or small.

  Really needs to know vs would like to know...  Two very different things.  If the two points are clearly paleo artifacts or something noteworthy, then it's usable information to an archaeologist (even if only as a dot on a 7.5 quad map.)  But filling out a site form for 2 unidentified arrowheads with the location of "my field" when you farm 5,000 acres doesn't create usable data points.

[waterglass]

Orari, I truely appreciate your thoughtful replies. I plan to call and talk to the folks today at some point. If I get a sniff of zealotry, I will cut ties with them. I am hopeful that things will work out. I have been collecting point all my life, and their are few sites that I know of that produce so many points from different periods in such a small area.

[orari]

Comment deleted.

[orari]

You're welcome Waterglass.
I am familiar with numerous sites that yield artifacts in the way you describe.  Every one of them is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D (significant and important for future archaeological research).  The second question for a potential NRHP listing under Criterion D is the issue of "integrity."  By that they mean whether the site is still intact below the ground surface---or has someone in years past dug the Hades out of it to where all the key things that can be read in the soil are gone.  Archaeologists can read the archaeological story in soil the way people read a book---if it is preserved.  If the site is no longer intact below the ground surface, then the site would not be considered significant and would not be eligible for listing on the NRHP.
Sounds like your site is very important.  Good luck with your efforts.

[sailorjoe]

orari wrote:

Whatever.

I have been trying to follow this thread closely because of a philosophical interest in the subject. What does this comment mean and to whom is it directed? It would help me because at some point I may wish to interject a comment.

[orari]

[QUOTE]sailorjoe wrote:

Whatever.

I have been trying to follow this thread closely because of a philosophical interest in the subject. What does this comment mean and to whom is it directed? It would help me because at some point I may wish to interject a comment.
  I was responding to the comment by Clovisoid---but apparently the computer system dropped it into the thread at the wrong location.  It was a gentle shrug and a sigh.  Otherwise, I would rather not go there.  Sometimes, in the interests of peace on the forum, it is wise for me to just sit still and keep my mouth shut.     If we could just take a deep breath and move on, I would like to do that now.  Thanks for your interest.

[orari]

[QUOTE]sailorjoe wrote:

Whatever.

I have been trying to follow this thread closely because of a philosophical interest in the subject. What does this comment mean and to whom is it directed? It would help me because at some point I may wish to interject a comment.
  Comment deleted.

[orari]

Folks.  I have just made a decision to leave the arrowheads.com forum---maybe not forever---but for a long time.  My time here with you has been enjoyable, and I have appreciated your kindness and getting to know all of you.  I came in peace and with the best intentions, and I intend to leave in peace.  Much love and affection to all of you,  and I wish you all the very best in life.   

[sailorjoe]

orari wrote:

Folks.  I have just made a decision to leave the arrowheads.com forum---maybe not forever---but for a long time.  My time here with you has been enjoyable, and I have appreciated your kindness and getting to know all of you.  I came in peace and with the best intentions, and I intend to leave in peace.  Much love and affection to all of you,  and I wish you all the very best in life.   

I'm a relative newcomer to the forum so my thoughts likely don't carry the weight of some of the old timers here. But as for me, I appreciate the professional viewpoint that Orari brought to some of the threads that I have read. I don't know if there is something on this thread or other reasons entirely different that have made Orari decide  to take a sabbatical. Whatever his reasons,  I wish him well.

[Kyflintguy]

orari wrote:

Folks.  I have just made a decision to leave the arrowheads.com forum---maybe not forever---but for a long time.  My time here with you has been enjoyable, and I have appreciated your kindness and getting to know all of you.  I came in peace and with the best intentions, and I intend to leave in peace.  Much love and affection to all of you,  and I wish you all the very best in life.   

Hey Orari,
      I for one have appreciated your insight and observations here on this forum, I hate to hear you would leave permanently, and I hope a good break would suffice instead. Thanks for providing us with a professionals perspective on archaeology and I hope that after a break you would reconsider and join back in the conversation.   
                           Thanks ! Josh

[painshill]

[QUOTE]Kyflintguy wrote:

Folks.  I have just made a decision to leave the arrowheads.com forum---maybe not forever---but for a long time.  My time here with you has been enjoyable, and I have appreciated your kindness and getting to know all of you.  I came in peace and with the best intentions, and I intend to leave in peace.  Much love and affection to all of you,  and I wish you all the very best in life.   

Hey Orari,
      I for one have appreciated your insight and observations here on this forum, I hate to hear you would leave permanently, and I hope a good break would suffice instead. Thanks for providing us with a professionals perspective on archaeology and I hope that after a break you would reconsider and join back in the conversation.   
                           Thanks ! Josh
  Me too.
Orari.... if folks having a different perspective or not seeing things the way you see them has had any influence on your decision, I would just ask you to bear in mind that this is the nature of forums. We frequently have such disagreements about all kinds of things, but one thing we don't do here is hold grudges against anyone for expressing valid opinions in a civil manner.