Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
And here is my reply back to David:
David,
I will intersperse my replies within your text:
Tom Thank you for your email and concerns. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand the message on the Kentucky Archaeological survey website.
David, I quoted directly from the website. What other interpretation is there, except that a teacher would be in violation of the law, if they were to take a garden spade to a school yard? Do you know the article this was lifted from? It came from the following: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/teachers.htm Read it for yourself, and you will see that I do not mis-quote.
If a teacher plans the excavation of an archeological site on state or municipal lands then they need a permit from the University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology.
So far, so good. This is the law. Note that you say yourself that an excavation on an "archaeological site" would need a permit. The question is, are all schools "archaeological sites". Is all KY public land, across the entire state, an "archaeological site" by definition of law?
Since most school grounds have not been surveyed by professional archaeologists,
Wait, if they have "not been surveyed by professional archaeologists", then they are not yet deemed an archaeological site ("scheduled sites" as they say in England), within the bounds of this law.
then it would not be advisable
Advisable or lawful? If it is only your organization's "advice" (which is noble and fine), then say so. But do not tell someone it is the law, if it is only advice.
to undertake excavations without first conducting an archaeological survey. If the teacher adversely impacts an archaeological site
Yes, they can not adversely impact archaeological sites. But once again, since when are all school yards an archaeological site? Please cite for me, in the law, where it says all KY public land is an archaeological site. To the contrary, I have shown you that the law clearly states that there are sites WITHIN the public land that either are archaeological sites, or may be designated as such at future times. Not ALL land is an archaeological site. Did you read the citations I furnished you?
, not only have they committed a felony,
The teacher CAN dig (excavate or whatever) on a school ground, and will NOT have committed a felony. However, if they find something to indicate it is an archaeological site, THEN they follow the mandates of the law to report it, and the site may be deemed to be, thus thereafter, an archaeological site. THEN there may no longer be excavating there, except by an archaeologist.
but what message are they sending their students. You should also consider that archaeology is not just about excavation. It is also about the context of recovery and making inferences about the past.
Yes, this may be a noble thing. I am not saying you don't have good advice, nice concerns, etc.... I am only saying that you are mis-stating the law, as it reads right now.
Looting of archaeological sites is a national problem. In addition, archaeological resources are a nonrenewable resource; once a site is destroyed it is gone forever. I do not think you are interested in training students to loot sites. Nor am I. That is why we encourage teachers to take project archaeology workshops and to work with professional archaeologists when designing an archaeology program.
Fine, agreed. All noble concerns. But this does not justify mis-stating the law.
Finally, I must say I am somewhat taken aback by your concerns about what we do in Kentucky, and what Kentucky law does or does not speak to. How does this affect what you do in Salinas, California? Are you planning to excavate an archaeological site with your class, without the involvement of a professional archaeologist?
This link was brought to my attention by a friend, on a web forum I participate in. I will elaborate on that, and tell you fully who I am, and why I was interested, once this mis-information has been corrected by your organization.
In the meantime, I will say that I do docent work at several historical museums, have worked hand in hand with archaeologists over the years, and am very familiar with this topic. More on that after you have either shown me 1) where the law says all KY land is an archaeological site, or 2) if you can't, then please publish a correction that your admonition was only "advice" and not the law.
Sincerely, Tom Tanner, Salinas, CA
David,
I will intersperse my replies within your text:
Tom Thank you for your email and concerns. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand the message on the Kentucky Archaeological survey website.
David, I quoted directly from the website. What other interpretation is there, except that a teacher would be in violation of the law, if they were to take a garden spade to a school yard? Do you know the article this was lifted from? It came from the following: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/teachers.htm Read it for yourself, and you will see that I do not mis-quote.
If a teacher plans the excavation of an archeological site on state or municipal lands then they need a permit from the University of Kentucky Department of Anthropology.
So far, so good. This is the law. Note that you say yourself that an excavation on an "archaeological site" would need a permit. The question is, are all schools "archaeological sites". Is all KY public land, across the entire state, an "archaeological site" by definition of law?
Since most school grounds have not been surveyed by professional archaeologists,
Wait, if they have "not been surveyed by professional archaeologists", then they are not yet deemed an archaeological site ("scheduled sites" as they say in England), within the bounds of this law.
then it would not be advisable
Advisable or lawful? If it is only your organization's "advice" (which is noble and fine), then say so. But do not tell someone it is the law, if it is only advice.
to undertake excavations without first conducting an archaeological survey. If the teacher adversely impacts an archaeological site
Yes, they can not adversely impact archaeological sites. But once again, since when are all school yards an archaeological site? Please cite for me, in the law, where it says all KY public land is an archaeological site. To the contrary, I have shown you that the law clearly states that there are sites WITHIN the public land that either are archaeological sites, or may be designated as such at future times. Not ALL land is an archaeological site. Did you read the citations I furnished you?
, not only have they committed a felony,
The teacher CAN dig (excavate or whatever) on a school ground, and will NOT have committed a felony. However, if they find something to indicate it is an archaeological site, THEN they follow the mandates of the law to report it, and the site may be deemed to be, thus thereafter, an archaeological site. THEN there may no longer be excavating there, except by an archaeologist.
but what message are they sending their students. You should also consider that archaeology is not just about excavation. It is also about the context of recovery and making inferences about the past.
Yes, this may be a noble thing. I am not saying you don't have good advice, nice concerns, etc.... I am only saying that you are mis-stating the law, as it reads right now.
Looting of archaeological sites is a national problem. In addition, archaeological resources are a nonrenewable resource; once a site is destroyed it is gone forever. I do not think you are interested in training students to loot sites. Nor am I. That is why we encourage teachers to take project archaeology workshops and to work with professional archaeologists when designing an archaeology program.
Fine, agreed. All noble concerns. But this does not justify mis-stating the law.
Finally, I must say I am somewhat taken aback by your concerns about what we do in Kentucky, and what Kentucky law does or does not speak to. How does this affect what you do in Salinas, California? Are you planning to excavate an archaeological site with your class, without the involvement of a professional archaeologist?
This link was brought to my attention by a friend, on a web forum I participate in. I will elaborate on that, and tell you fully who I am, and why I was interested, once this mis-information has been corrected by your organization.
In the meantime, I will say that I do docent work at several historical museums, have worked hand in hand with archaeologists over the years, and am very familiar with this topic. More on that after you have either shown me 1) where the law says all KY land is an archaeological site, or 2) if you can't, then please publish a correction that your admonition was only "advice" and not the law.
Sincerely, Tom Tanner, Salinas, CA
Well several days have gone by since I sent them each an email, explaining point by point how they've mis-interpretted the law. They have not responded. Who do these guys answer too? I mean, if they are a tax-payer funded wing of government, who are they answerable to? Like, if they are a wing of a university, it would seem that I could take my complaint to the next level up at the university, right? Because if they ignore this, I either want to complain to the "next person up on the ladder", or to issue a correction OF MY OWN to all Kentucky state teachers. I would be sure to CC David and Gwynn in to the correction, JUST so they know that their mis-information has been corrected.
I told Donna that it would be easier if I just emailed her my issue, so that I could explain it better. She gave me her email address. I shot off the following email this afternoon to her:
I'll take you out to do some detecting while you're here too 
![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
Because, you see, when the government vests a certain authority into someone's hands, quite often, even though they have higher up superiors, yet "day to day" decisions as small as this minutia, are, by there very defintion, left into the hands of these underlings to handle. While this doesn't seem fair, there is a reason for it in government hierarchy: If it were not this way, EVERYONE would decline to deal with middle-management, and always think they can keep appealing the simplest decisions "all the way to the top", when in fact, it is the lower level adminstrators, whose job it is, to handle those things. So what I'm saying is, it has to be a really nasty corruption, crime, or whatever, for higher ups to "get involved". Obviously, in this case, we are at a disadvantage, because the average person would say "who cares about this? Isn't preservation a good thing? and thus Gwynn and David's interpretation is for a noble cause? Why does someone in CA care about such thing in KY?" So the odds are, this will die with no action.
