make. The Landowner Site Packet is used to illustrate and
clarify aspects about the Registry program. It functions to
educate the landowner about the site and its significance.

‘The landowner is contacted twice before the Initial Visit takes
place. The first contact is by mail. A brief descriptive
statement about the program is included in the letter,
accompanied by brochures that summarize the Registry
program and outline Kentucky prehistory. Next, the
landowner is contacted by telephone to set up an appointment
for the Initial Visit.

The Initial Visit

‘The Initial Visit is the focal point of the landowner contact/
site registration process. During this visit, the Registry
program is explained in detail within the context of discussing
the site and its importance. Stewardship activities the
landowner may have undertaken in the past, as well as the
appropriate activities the landowner should continue to
follow, are discussed.

During the Initial Visit, the foundation is laid for establishing
the landowner’s preservation commitment and his or her
long-term relationship with the Registry. One of the purposes
of the Registry is to educate the landowner about his or her
site: how old it is; who were its inhabitants, what they wore,
and how they lived; identification of artifacts and their
methods of manufacture; and its significance. In addition to
this site information, the Initial Visit allows the Coordinator
to collect information about the landowner and his or her
family, the site’s history of use, and the types of threats it
faced in the past.

Some landowners decide to participate in the program and
sign the Registry Agreement during the Initial Visit. Others
wish to think it over and discuss it with family members.’
The Coordinator determines whether a verbal registration has
been secured. In most cases, the landowner will not promise
to preserve and protect the site in those exact words. But if
the landowner is sincere and interested, then a verbal
registration is considered to have been secured.

Post-Initial Visit Activities

Many of the activities that take place after the Initial Visit
depend on its results. A few activities, however, take place
immediately after each visit irrespective of the landowner’s
decision regarding site registration. They fall into two
categories, recording information and communicating with
the landowner,

A number of different kinds of information, recorded and kept
on file in the Site File, are collected during the Initial Visit.
This information is critically important to future contacts with
the landowner because it serves as a baseline from which to
monitor the site’s condition on subsequent visits and can
provide insight into the stronger protection options that might
be most appropriate should the landowner request them.

A report of the Initial Visit itself is prepared. This includes a
description of activities during the visit, the Coordinator's

feelings about the landowner’s receptiveness to the program
and perspective on site preservation, the results of the visit,
and the topics discussed. Facts gathered about the landowner,
such as his or her level of education, economic situation,
details about his or her life and family, perspectives about the
site and site preservation, are summarized in a separate report.
Information detailing the condition of the site, including its
location and degree of any looting and vandalism or ground
disturbance, is noted on the Site Monitoring Record.

As soon as possible after the Initial Visit, a thank-you letter is
sent to the landowner regardless of his or her response to the
program. If the landowner expressed interest in learning
about other protection options this information is included (cf.
Milne 1984). If the landowner agreed to participate in the
program, the letter mentions the awards the landowner will
receive and reiterates the agreement he or she made. A
number of additional activities are undertaken. The most
important of these is the preparation of the awards,
Announcement of the registration in the newspaper or other
media depends upon the landowner’s permission, the site's
history of notoriety, its state of preservation, and threats of
looting and vandalism. Press releases are written only with
the landowner's permission and only for sites that are not at a
high risk of looting and vandalism.

Other tasks are carried out soon after the Initial Visit,
especially if the landowner has agreed to participate in the
program. His or her name is added to the various mailing
lists, the Registry newsletter mailing list, KHC’s preservation
mailing list, and Kentucky Archaeological Newsletter mailing
A photocopy of the Registry Agreement, if it was signed,
is sent to the landowner. About a month later the SHPO/
Director of KHC sends a letter to the landowner in which he
or she personally expresses appreciation for the landowner’s
decision to participate.

Tf the landowner did not agree to participate during the course
of the Initial Visit but wished to think it over, the thank-you
letter is followed by a telephone call within a month. If the
answer then is "yes," the activities discussed above are carried
out. A thank-you letter is sent after the Initial Visit even if
the landowner is clearly not interested in participating in the
program. Depending on the nature of the landowner’s
negative response, the immediacy of threats to the site, and
the significance of the site, an attempt to contact the
landowner again in six months or a year to reconsider the
decision may be appropriate.

Registry Maintenance Activities

Upon the designation of an archeological site as a Kentucky
Archaeological Landmark, a long-term commitment to the
site and its landowner begins. Participation in the Registry
provides an opportunity to establish a relationship with the
landowner. In the years that follow it is hoped that the
landowner’s interest in the protection and preservation of the
site will grow by virtue of this participation. As a result of
this greater interest, opportunities for stronger protection may
develop in the future.



-10-

References Cited

Carmony, Paul

1982 The Indiana Natural Areas Registry Program in Retrospect. Ms. on file, Kentucky Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy, Frankfort, Kentucky.

1987 Indiana Natural Areas Registry Update. Ms. on file, Kentucky Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Frankfort,
Kentucky.

Ford, Richard 1.
1983 ‘The Archacological Conservancy, Inc. The Goal is Site Preservation. In Management and Preservation, edited
by Margaret Kimball Brown, American Archaeology 3(3):221-224.

Henderson, A. Gwynn
1988a Results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry Program's Second Year of Operations. Kentucky Nature
Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky.

1988) The Kentucky Archaeological Registry: Citizen-based Preservation for Kentucky's Archaeological Sites.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Henderson, A. Gwynn, and Richard R. Hannan
1988 Stronger Protection Options for Kentucky's Most Significant Archaeological Sites. Kentucky Nature Preserves
Commission, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Hoose, Phillip M.
1981 Building an Ark: Tools for the Preservation of Natural Diversity Through Land Protection. Island Press,
Covelo, California.

1984 Landowner ContaclRegistry (LOC/R): Status Report After Four Years, Ms. on file, Kentucky Chapter of The
Nature Conservancy, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Milne, Janet B.
1984 The Landowner’s Options. In Land-Saving Action, edited by Russell L. Brenneman and Sarah M. Bates, pp.
217-226. Island Press, Covelo, California.

Sanders, Sara L.
1988 The Stone Serpent Mound (15BD6) of Boyd County, Kentucky. Unpublished Master's practicum, Department of
Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

The Nature Conservancy
1988 The Appalachians. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 38(2).

The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office
1985 Guidelines for Registry Workers. Ms. on file, Kentucky Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Frankfort,
Kentucky.



person by the Coordinator during Year One and Year Two.
Sixteen landowners agreed to participate by signing a
Registry Agreement while the remaining three gave verbal
consent to program participation.

The 19 Registry entries represent registration for 19
archeological sites totaling 300 acres. Eighteen sites were
registered during Year One, while one new site was registered
during Year Two. Registration for 15 of these sites en-
compasses the entire site area, while four of the registries
cover only a portion of the site. These partial registries, in
most cases, represent over one-third to three-fourths of the
site. Site types registered include earthen enclosures, a
ditched enclosure, burial mounds (Figure 5), villages, temple
mound and village complexes, a stone alignment, and a
rockshelter. Cultural components at these sites include

prehistoric sites with either single or multicomponent
deposits, as well as one site with an early historic component.

Figure 5. Located on the property of Mrs. Ann H. Gay, this mound
is listed in the Registry. (Photo courtesy of David Pollack)

The condition of 16 of the 18 sites registered during the
program's first year of operation remained unchanged during
the second year of operation. Notable alterations occurred to
only two of these sites and to the newly registered site. This
resulted in a total of three registered sites at which conditions
had changed between the Initial Visit and the Follow-up Visit.
Changes at two had occurred due to a change in Jand use. At
one site the land use varied because the property was sold.
Timber had been removed in some areas, while in others, the
site was disked and sown with grass for pasture, At the other
site, a road built to haul timber had been constructed by a
third party in the site area, contrary to the landowner's
instructions. Disturbance to these two sites was minimal.
Changes at the third had occurred as a result of vandalism,
which, while substantial, did not significantly alter the site’s
integrity.

During the Registry’s first year of operation, five requests
were received for information about stronger site protection,
including easements, site donation and purchase, and site
management (Henderson 1988a:7-10 and 1988b:57-58).
They were solicited by three landowners who decided to
participate in the program and by two who deferred. One
new request for stronger site protection was received from a
participating landowner during the Registry’s second year of
operation.

In response to these requests, information was prepared and
sent to the landowners, the landowners were visited again,
and options available to them were discussed. More detailed
information about property boundaries also was collected, and
the landowners’ requests were discussed with KHC as well as
with potentially interested third parties such as The
Archaeological Conservancy, a private archeological site
preservation organization (Ford 1983), and the University of
Kentucky. To date, protection beyond site registration has
not been negotiated for these sites.

The request for aid in site management, unlike the requests
for stronger site protection, was handled in a different
manner. Through discussions with the media relations
manager of the corporation that owns a registered site, it
became clear that the company was interested in receiving
information that would help it manage the site more
effectively. Serving as a clearinghouse, the Coordinator
sought aid from the archeological community in honoring this
request. A graduate student at the University of Kentucky
volunteered to provide the requested information. The site
was mapped, tested, and a detailed management study was
prepared (Sanders 1988). As a result of this project, the
company was provided with the management assistance it
needed.*

More in-depth discussion of the program's results, as well as
the characteristics of the Registry sites and their landowners,
is provided in Henderson (1988a:2-11 and 1988b:43-70).

Program Evaluation

Landowner contact/site registration has been proven to be
effective in the protection and preservation of natural areas
since 1980 (Hoose 1984:7). The results of the Registry’s first
two years of operation are comparable to the results of the
natural areas registry programs (Carmony 1982, 1987) and
demonstrate that the landowner contact/site registration
technique can be successfully adapted to the protection of
unique and irreplaceable archeological resources. Several
factors can be cited as contributing to the success of the
program.

One obvious reason is the fact that it is modeled upon TNC’s
successful registry program. By following this model, which
has been field tested in many situations, the Registry placed
itself in an excellent position to succeed.

The communication, trust, and rapport that develops between
the landowner and the Coordinator is another factor that
contributes to the Registry’s success. Since the Registry
program is personified by the Coordinator, the personality
and attitude of the Coordinator can make or break a land-
owner contact/site registration program (Hoose 1984:6). The
Coordinator must be able to communicate effectively with
landowners in a non-threatening way about the program and
their sites’ importance and, therefore, convince them to make
the commitment to preserve and protect their sites.

A third factor that contributes to the Registry’s success is the
existence of an AOR for a site. The concept of the AOR does



try follow-up and maintenance activities are critically
important to the landowner contact/site registration process
(Hoose 1981:56). Landowner contact/site registration can be
considered a successful site preservation option only if the
relationship with the landowner begun during the initial Visit
is nurtured.

Without a good follow-up system to remind owners of the importance
of their areas (sites) and help them develop a firmer preservation
ethic, its (the Registry program's) value could decline rapidly
(Carmony 1987:4).

In effect, then, the easy part of landowner contact/site
registration is the registration itself. The hardest part is
staying in touch with each landowner.

Registry follow-up and maintenance consists of communicat-
ing with the landowner, educating him or her about the
importance of protecting the site, and monitoring the
condition of the site at regular intervals. The goals of
follow-up and maintenance activities at registered sites
consist of the following:

+ Enhancing and continuing to build a relationship with the
landowner;

* Educating the landowner about the site and its
preservation;

* Providing site management support and site protection
information; and

* Monitoring the site for any disturbance or new threats to
its protection.

Frequent and personal communication with the landowner
throughout the year is the primary way by which the
relationship with the landowner is enhanced. This includes
sending letters, notes or cards, preparing and sending the
Registry newsletter, and visiting the landowner in person.
The Registry newsletter is an excellent means of maintaining
communication with the participating landowners while
simultaneously informing and educating them. Receipt of the
newsletter reminds landowners of their participation in the
program, the agreement they have made, and the significance
of their preservation commitment. It is used to report on
Tecent program accomplishments and announce conferences,
meetings, or publications of interest to the landowner. It
provides information about prehistory or history, site
management, site looting and vandalism, and_ stronger
protection options.

The single most effective follow-up activity, however, is the
annual Follow-up Visit. The Follow-up Visit is the way in
which landowner communication and education is carried out.
The Follow-up Visit provides the Coordinator with an
opportunity to discuss site protection and to monitor the site's
condition. The same landowner contact procedure for the
Initial Visit is followed prior to the Follow-up Visit (Hender-
son 1988a:3-5). Each landowner is telephoned, and the
Follow-up Visit is scheduled. Care is taken to explain the
purpose of the Visit to allay any concerns landowners might

have that an additional request will be made of them. Prior to
the Follow-up Visit, the Coordinator reviews each Site File to
be familiar with the important facts. Information still
promised to a landowner is prepared. Information still
lacking in the Site Files is noted so that it can be collected
during the Visit.

Gifts are always brought to the landowner on the Follow-up
Visit. These consist of such items as posters, articles,
pamphlets, or copies of recent legislation that deals with
archeological sites. They serve several functions: (1) they
provide an obvious reason for visiting the landowner and not
just his or her site; (2) they provide an opportunity to
demonstrate once again appreciation for the landowner’s
preservation commitment; and (3) they represent a way to
educate landowners about archeology.

Another important function of the Follow-up Visit, is to
provide an opportunity to monitor the site’s preservation
status. During the Follow-up Visit, questions are always
asked about the site, its condition, and any problems with
looting and/or vandalism the landowner may have had in the
course of the year. If at all possible, the site is visited in the
company of the landowner and site stewardship activities are
discussed. Information is collected about features of the site
locale, locations of current and previous human and natural
destruction, and site boundaries.

Activities conducted after the Follow-up Visit resemble those
undertaken after the Initial Visit and consist of landowner
communication and documentation. A note is sent to the
landowner thanking him or her for spending time with the
Coordinator. A note also is sent to the AOR, if one exists for
the site, informing him or her of the Follow-up Visit and
providing updated information about the landowner, his or
her family, and the site's condition.

A Follow-up it report is prepared, information about each
landowner is recorded and, if need be, changed in the Site
File, and a Site Monitoring Record Update is completed that
includes any changes noted in the site's preservation status.
Once sufficient information is collected regarding the site’s
management needs, and this may have to be collected over
the course of several years, a detailed site management plan is
prepared for each site and discussed with the landowner
(Henderson and Hannan 1988:34-40).

Results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry
To Date

The results of landowner contact/site registration activities
undertaken during the Registry’s first two years of operation
were very positive. A total of 16 landowners out of 30
contacted agreed to participate during Year One. Three
landowners declined to participate, eight deferred site
registration, and for three landowners site registration
activities were incomplete. Two additional landowners were
contacted during Year Two and agreed to participate. One of
the landowners who deferred in Year One chose to participate
during Year Two. This resulted in a combined total of 19
participating landowners out of the 32 who were contacted in



“opies of The Kentucky Archaeological Registry: Citizen-
based Preservation for Kentucky's Archaeological Sites and
Results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry Program's
Second Year of Operation by A. Gwynn Henderson, which
describe respectively the Registry’s first and second years of
operation, are available from KHC at the above address.

Notes

Surprisingly few landowner contact/site registration programs had
been incorporated into the archeological community’s approach to
site preservation prior to the creation of the Registry. None had been
patterned on 'TNC’s landowner contact/site registration model.

During development of the Registry, a site protection questionnaire
was sent to all 56 SHIPOs (Henderson 1988b:22-23), From the 33
responses received, it was leamed that 15 States have some form of
archeological registry program "on their books.” Some States had not
implemented their registry programs due to a lack of success in the
past or a lack of personnel and funds. Other programs depend on the
initiative of the private landowner for site registration. Several mirror
the National Register of Historic Places by providing protection under
a State "Section 106" compliance process. None of these programs,
however, is composed of the same elements embodied within the
landowner contact/site registration program that is the Registry.

? Many questions were raised about the National Register of

Historic Places probably due to the similarity in the names of the two
programs. Landowners whose sites were already listed in the
National Register were sometimes puzzled when they were requested
to participate in the Registry. Similarly, landowners who held
misconceptions about the National Register often transferred these
misconceptions to the Registry. When this occurred, the Coordinator
tried to address these questions by contrasting the two programs.
Some of the more important differences include the following:

1, National Register status applies to a site even after ownership
changes. In the case of the Kemtucky Archacological Registry,
the new landowner has to be contacted and asked 10 continue the
preservation commitment made by the former owner;

2. Frequent personal contact with participating landowners is not an
clement of the National Register, but it is a major element of the
Kentucky Archaeological Registry; and

3. National Register status is an element of Federal historic
preservation law. Kentucky Archaeological Landmark status
confers no legal protection under State laws.

Other differences between the two programs are discussed in
Henderson (1988b:64-65).

Some questions that were occasionally raised dealt with the
limitations 10 land use that participation in the Registry might
engender. These included such questions as:

+ Will [be able to construct buildings and fences where I choose, or
will | have to get permission from KHC?

+ Will participation affect my children’s inheritance of the
property?

+ Will Tneed KHC’s permission to sell my land and will KIC have
a voice in deciding to whom I may sell?

+ Will panticipation in the Registry affect the property value of my
land?

+ Will registration lead to increased or required visitation of my
site?

Since registration of a site as a Kentucky Archaeological Landmark is
completely voluntary, non-regulatory, and not legally binding, no
limitations are placed on the landowner’s use of the land or children’s
later use of the property. The request that the landowner notify KHC
of an intent to transfer ownership is made simply to facilitate contact
with the subsequent landowner to request continuation of the fonner
owner's preservation commitment. It is unclear how registration of a
site will affect property values, although the fandowner could
certainly use it to his or her advantage when negotiating a price for
the property. No public visitation of a registered site is required for
participation in the program.

Mo: ions raised by the landowners focused not on the Registry,
its limitations, or stipulations, but rather on the site: How old was
What kinds of people had lived there? Was this the only site fike it in
the State? The Registry Coordinator also was asked to identify
artifacts in landowners’ collections, to give names and dates, and to
describe how they had been made.

One question never specifically raised was "So, what's in it for me?"
In describing the program to the landowner, the Coordinator
described benefits in anticipation of this unspoken question. ‘They
included some of the following (Henderson 1988b:63-64):

+ Registration is a good thing because you get a feeling of personal
satisfaction knowing you have preserved the past for the future;

+ By registering your site, you receive recognition that you own
something special and have done something special to preserve it;

+ Registration offers you an opportunity to learn more about your
site and your property; and

+ Through registration, you gain membership in a select group of
Kentucky landowners.

3 Generally, requests for information about financial assistance, tax

benefits, and legal advice have not been made. These kinds of
Fequests might become more common as the Registry becomes
established and if participating landowners choose to pursue stronger
protection options for their sites.



ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Technical Brief No. 6, October 1989 (Revised 1991)
THE KENTUCKY ARCHAEOLOGICAL

REGISTRY:
Landowner Participation in Site Preservation

By A. Gwynn Henderson, Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
SE) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Laws directed at protecting archeological sites frequently
target those located on State or federally owned property, but
many sites are located on private property. These sites
represent a significant portion of the identified sites in many
States, meaning that large numbers of our nation's
archeological resources are not protected.

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry was created to address
this problem. Modeled on The Nature Conservancy's
nationally successful program for protecting privately owned
natural areas, the Registry represents a way to involve
private landowners in the protection of Kentucky's significant
archeological sites. Landowners are asked to make a
commitment to preserve and protect their sites and are
presented awards in recognition of these commitments. In
addition, they are educated about their sites’ significance,
provided management assistance, and informed about
stronger preservation options available to them.

Following the introduction, this publication describes the
objectives of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry, how a
landowner can participate in the program, and the steps in
the landowner contactisite registration process. Next, the
results of the Kentucky Archaeological Registry's first two
years of operation are discussed, and the Registry’ s successes
are evaluated. Finally, the role landowner contact/site
registration can play as part of a broader site protection and
preservation program is discussed.

Introduction

Concern for the protection and preservation of archeological
sites has been voiced for about as long as their destruction has
occurred. The passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeologi-
cal Resources Protection Act of 1979, and subsequent laws
and regulations, as well as State antiquities laws and
regulations, have made the protection and preservation of
archeological sites a matter of public policy. Yet for the most
part, these laws are directed at protecting sites located on
Federal, State, county, and municipal property, or those sites
threatened by destruction from State or federally licensed or
permitted projects. Generally, archeological sites located on
private land have not benefited from any programmatic site
protection policy. The protection and preservation of these

archeological sites rests almost entirely in the hands of private
landowners.

One way to ensure that these sites are preserved and protected
is for the lands on which they are located to be brought into
public ownership or to be acquired “in fee" by preservation
groups. That is, all rights to such property are acquired (Ford
1983; Hoose 1981:26-27). While site acquisition may afford
the best protection in most cases, it is not always the most
feasible approach. ‘The limitations inherent in acquiring land,
ice., the large investments of time and money required, restrict
the use of acquisition as a primary method of site protection
and preservation to only a few sites.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), an organization created to
find, protect, and maintain the best examples of natural
communities, ecosystems, and endangered species (The
Nature Conservancy 1988:3), uses a number of techniques, in
addition to land acquisition, in its successful efforts to
preserve natural diversity. These techniques differ in the
speed in which they are used, their cost, the strength of the
protection they offer, the duration of the protection they offer,
and the degree to which they restrict a deed (Hoose 1981:29),
They include such techniques as arranging renewable
management agreements or leases and negotiating conserva-
tion easements and deed restrictions. By using a variety of
techniques, TNC has been able to accom its goal of
natural areas protection, even when acquisition was not
feasible. This has led to the protection and preservation of
larger areas and more species than would have been possible
through acquisition alone.

Landowner contact/site registration represents one of these
techniques. Jt involves a fairly simple, straightforward
approach to natural areas protection, predicated on the
assumption that the landowner has an interest in the resource
and will not purposely destroy it, and that the landowner will
act as the resource’s steward by virtue of the preservation
commitment he or she is asked to make. Hoose (1981:35-68)
describes this approach as "all carrot and no stick.”

On the face of it, landowner contact/site registration appears
to provide virtually no protection for the resource. In
actuality, few cases of breach of commitment have occurred
in the more established natural areas registries (Paul
Carmony, personal communication 1987), and the species for



not have a counterpart in TNC’s landowner contact/site
registration formula. It became evident in the early stages of
the Registry's development, however, that the chances for
registration would be greater for sites at which professional
archeologists had worked for many years and developed
tapport with the landowners. The AOR often had consider-
able personal and professional investment in a sile, concern
for its future, and ideas on ways to preserve it. He or she
previously may have discussed site preservation and
management with the landowner. Given a role in the
registration process, AORs proved to be an important source
of support since their understanding and appreciation of the
Registry, together with their positive attitude toward it, often
helped allay landowners’ misgivings.

Summary and Conclusion

ry provides a cost-effective, programmatic
response to the problem of long-term protection and
preservation of significant archeological sites on private
property. It encourages the preservation and protection of
Kentucky's significant archeological sites by enlisting the aid
of landowners in their preservation. Its major functions
include the followin;

1. To provide low-level site protection;

2. To provide opportunities for regular and systematic
monitoring of significant sites; and

3. To provide opportunities to educate _ participating
landowners about the importance and the preservation of
their sites.

As a result of the activities undertaken during the first two
years of operation, it was demonstrated that the Registry also
can serve other purposes. For instance, it can help nurture a
constituency concerned about general issues in site protection
and preservation. During Year Two, for instance, landowners
were informed of looting that had occurred to a site in
westem Kentucky. They were asked to write to the County
Attorney to express their concern about the site’s destruction.
Many landowners previously had had similar experiences
with looting on their sites and had felt powerless to do much
about it. [t was decided that this incident presented an
opportunity for the landowners to do something about their
frustration. As owners of Kentucky Archaeological
Landmarks, they were in a unique position to tell officials that
site looting is not a rare or isolated occurrence in the State.
Four of the landowners sent letters.

Another function the Registry can serve is that of renewing or
piquing archeologists’ interest in studying these important
sites. Archeologists were made aware that some sites
considered to have been destroyed actually exist in a good
slate of preservation even after having been forgotten for
decades, Some of these archeologists have expressed serious
interest in pursuing research activities at Registry sites. When
archeologists begin to plan such studies, the Registry will
provide them with current site information and suggestions on

the kinds of information needed about the site, as well as
information about the landowner and the landowner's
position regarding conducting research at the site.
Archeologists contemplating such work will have to obtain
the landowner’s permission to conduct any field work.

The Registry can facilitate communication between the
landowner and parties interested in negotiating stronger site
protection. The Registry program can introduce groups, such
as The Archaeological Conservancy, to interested landowners
and provide information to these groups that might enhance
their opportunity to acquire significant sites (Henderson
1988a:12).

Hoose (1984:1), however, considers a landowner contact/site
ration program to be most useful as the primary level
within a system of protection tools. In some situations
stronger site protection, such as management leases, deed
Testrictions, conservation easements, or dedications (Hender-
son 1988b:71-81: Henderson and Hannan 1988) are required
to ensure adequate protection of the property. In this case the
Registry also serves as a screening device for sites and
situations that might combine to produce opportunities for
stronger and more enduring site protection. As discussed
previously, six such instances of requests for information on
stronger site protection and management were encountered
during the Registry’s first two years of operation.

The site protection provided by landowners who participate in
the Registry illustrates the preservation potential that exists in
a generally untapped resource: the landowner. Landowners
serving as voluntary site stewards will help to ensure that
Kentucky’s most significant sites will be preserved and
protected for the future.

The success of the Registry to date has struck a cord with
many of the landowners who have been contacted during its
short existence. As a positive approach to site protection, the
Registry also has struck a cord with archeologists (Henderson
1988a:13-14). There appears to be an increasing awareness
on the part of archeologists of the need to become involved in
and develop methods of site protection and preservation in
addition to those commonly used in the past. Hand in hand
with this growing awareness is the acknowledgment that
archeologists must provide the public with better access to
information acquired through archeological _ research.
Archeologists see in the Registry a way to respond to both
needs in a cost-effective, positive way, and its success should
encourage other States to develop registries of their own. The
creation of the Registry seems to be riding the crest of a wave
in American archeology that recognizes that public involve-
ment in archeology is the best way to ensure there is
archeology in our future.

For more information about the Kentucky Archaeological
Registry, contact:

Kentucky Heritage Council
677 Comanche Trail
Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7005.



Steps in the Registration Process

The process of landowner contact/site registration follows a
series of prescribed steps designed to collect all pertinent
information about the site, the property, and its owner before
the landowner is contacted, and to accurately document the
results of any contacts and communication. Henderson
(1988a, 1988b) discusses the development and implementa-
tion of the Registry in more detail, with example handouts,
forms, awards, and letters provided in appendices. Figure 4
depicts graphically the steps in the landowner contact/site
registration process.

Site Selection

‘The integrity of any landowner contact/registry program, and
therefore its effectiveness as a preservation tool, is directly
related to the integrity of the sites selected for preservation
(Carmony 1982:4; Hoose 1981:59). Therefore, before a site
is considered for registration, it must have been identified,
located, recorded, and evaluated for its significance,

To be considered for registration, a site should be clearly
significant. A site’s significance is most commonly evaluated
according to the criteria for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, which includes examination of site integrity
and potential to address important research questions. Other
factors, in addition to those based upon National Register
criteria, can and should be considered when selecting a site
for registration. These include, for example, the site’s
cultural affiliation, physiographic setting, or the potential for
threats lo its preservation, as from vandalism, erosion, or
development.

The first sites chosen for registration were selected from a
master list of potential sites compiled from suggestions by
Kentucky's archeological community-at-large (Henderson
1988b:21-25). Registry site candidates, selected from this
master list by KHC and the Coordinator, met two general
ignificance criteria:

1. They had contributed to or had the potential to contribute
to an understanding of Kentucky's prehistoric and/or
historic past; and

2. They were in a good state of preservation.

Pre-Initial Visit Activities

‘These activities consist of creating Registry Site Files (Site
Files), initiating contact with landowners, and developing the
Landowner Site Packet. Development of the Site Files
includes collecting and synthesizing information about each
site and its landowner. This includes gathering information
about the environmental and archeological aspects of the site,
the site’s significance, known threats, current information
about the landowner and the property on which the site is
located, and landowner attitudes concerning the site and its
preservation. This is accomplished by reviewing all available
printed matter regarding the site, such as reports and papers,
as well as previous correspondence, such as letters from
landowners, newspaper clippings, and compliance review

Historica!
Documents

SYNTHESIZE
INFORMATION,

coNTACT

LANDOWNER

ee ee

ANNUAL
FOLLOW-UP and
MONITORING

EGOTIATE STRONG!
PROTECTION

Figure 4, Flow chart of landowner contactisite registration
activities. (Courtesy of the Registry)

letters. Information about the site and its landowner is
solicited from individuals who may have opinions about the
site’s preservation, protection, and management needs, and
who may know the landowner or something about his or her
attitudes toward preservation. | These people include
avocational and professional archeologists and adjacent
landowners. The archeologist who has been most involved in
research at the site, referred to as the Archaeologist of Record
(AOR), may be the single most helpful source of information
about the site. The AOR has the advantage of knowing the
landowner, the site, and their common histories in more detail
than most other informants.

Rosters of all Registry contacts with the landowner are kept in
the Site Files, one for each Jandowner/site combination. The
Site File contains copies of all correspondence, telephone
notes, and other information. Specific management and
stewardship considerations for the site outlined prior to the
Initial Visit are included in the file.

The Landowner Site Packet, which is left with the landowner
at the end of the Initial Visit, is an individualized collection of
information. It contains general information about the
program, specific information about the site and, where
warranted, information about other archeological topics. It
also contains the Registry Agreement (Figure 1). This
agreement consists of a topographic map with the site
boundaries and the landowner boundaries outlined on it, a
cover page that briefly describes the site, its significance, and
the preservation commitment the landowner is being asked to



The foundation for preservation and protection provided by
the Registry is the preservation commitment made by each
landowner. Participants are asked to honor three requests:

1. To preserve and protect their sites to the best of th
abilities;

n

. To notify KHC of any threats to the site such as looting,
vandalism, proposed construction, excavation, or any
other ground disturbing activities; and

3. To notify KHC of any intent to sell or transfer ownership.

Because the preservation commitment is made only between
the current owner and KHC, it does not “run with the land."
The preservation agreement must be negotiated anew when
the property is sold and a new landowner controls the site.
‘This is the reason why the landowner is requested to provide
new information when the property is sold or when ownership
is transferred.

KHC for its part, agrees to the following:
L. To provide site management assistance; and

2. To provide, upon request, aid to the landowner in
selecting the most appropriate tools for stronger site
protection.

A landowner can participate in the Registry in one of two
ways: by verbally agreeing to protect the site, or by signing a
non-binding Registry Agreement (Figure 1). The land-
owner's preservation commitment is recognized through the

KENTUCKY ARCHAEOLOGICAL REGISTRY

‘THE KENTUCKY HERITAGE COUNCIL: REGISTRY AGREEMENT

ls remy apa a acl and consisting opps ond
(tha ot rraoly stat be pce ot ne Rantasy frchaestogen Teg Scars pursuant o KAS
57138 ast appa ows

By nnen he anteater the one aciraminces th ascsce ot
ing tchancogea! ele and siete niche pases Fecal onal vaues "By sigorg his
Seeman’ the Kantuy Heeago Courolayebs fo pron menagerie asssance he
‘Nfescance ois pope anh nmers ce geek by awarding Aces anda poae

te tnesood thas amstment voles change fl OF es eS Bip as, ae
compat neon inate une aeee ta the aoa ult nth ataches map
{iment manor and ie ics to te Coun 3 shang of acne often Ta aor ae.
‘Sop art qe nlc any tests he otea soc aes Yom, propa censicon,ercava
ono ay eer grou arg sees

etn eso sow Hora Cr etnies oi a om en wth
‘en use, anor rennotng te sta condtion| ”

is ery agri a Ksctcky Arcnasloga
wing yao psy oh oar pon Py 0) ays

_etay Ree Cae Sta Member

‘iia Ngan. Bier
Kentucky Hertage Counc
‘tae Hstortc Preservation Otese

ure 1. Fascimile of the Registry Agreement.

This is to certify that
owned by

is a registered
Kentucky Archaeological
Landmark

“This owner prsrcing this ea sigan part of Kentucky cual heritage

Figure 2. Kentucky Archaeological Registry Cerificate. (Courtesy
of the Registry)

presentation of awards, commensurate with his or her level of
participation. A. certificate (Figure 2), signed by the
Govemor of Kentucky and the Chairman of KHC is presented
for a verbal agreement. A certificate and a plaque (Figure 3)
are presented when a Registry Agreement is signed. In both
cases, the sites are designated Kentucky Archaeological
Landmarks. A landowner’s name also is added to the KHC’s
mailing list, and every two months he or she receives KHC’s
preservation newsletter, which includes a section about the
Registry. The landowner also receives copies of the Registry
newsletter, prepared annually by the Coordinator, and the
Kentucky Archaeological Newsletter, prepared three times a
year by the Program for Cultural Assessment at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky in Lexington.

Figure 3. Mrs. Nita M. Cropper, Registry landowner, holding a
Registry Plaque. (Photo courtesy of David Pollack)



which the properties were registered have remained undis-
turbed. In addition, landowner contact/site registration has
created opportunities, in many cases, to negotiate stronger
protection for registered areas at a later date. Given the track
record of the natural areas registries, it can be stated
unequivocally that landowner contacy/site registration is a
successful preservation strategy that has led to the protection
of many species that might otherwise have been destroyed
(Carmony 1982, 1987, personal communication 1987).

Because of the proven effectiveness of landowner contact/site
registration as a protection tool for natural areas, it seems
likely that this technique also holds enormous potential for
the protection and preservation of significant archeological
sites. This seems especially true when one considers that the
bottom line for both natural areas conservation and
archeological site preservation is the same: preservation of
the land.!

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry

The Kentucky Archaeological Registry (Registry), a program
that involves landowners in the preservation and protection of
Kentucky's significant archeological sites, was developed and
implemented in 1987. The preservation of sites on private
property was especially targeted during the Registry’s first
two years of operation due to the lack of legal protection
available for such sites.

‘The purpose of the Registry is to secure the protection of land
that contains important archeological sites. Each landowner
is informed and educated about the significance of the
archeological site he or she owns, and the landowner’s aid is
enlisted in the site’s protection and preservation. The goal is
to encourage the landowner to make a conscious, voluntary
commitment to protect his or her site, which leads to
voluntary stewardship of the site.

The Registry was created as the result of a unique cooperative
effort between two State agencies. The Kentucky Heritage
Council (KHC), which serves as the State Historic Preserva-
tion Office (SHPO), had sought to develop a program of
long-term site protection for Kentucky's — significant
archeological sites, but lacked the requisite expertise. The
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC), the
agency responsible for administration and management of
State nature preserves, had developed this expertise within the
context of its comprehensive program of land preservation.
This program consists of the Kentucky Natural Areas
Registry, an array of land preservation tools and legal options,
and the stewardship and management of acquired properties.

At KHC’s request, KSNPC agreed to develop and implement
a site protection strategy for significant archeological sites
modeled on the Kentucky Natural Areas Registry (Henderson
1988b:11-14). Funding for the Registry’s first two years was
provided by Federal Historic Preservation Fund survey and
planning grants. The Registry was developed and admini-
stered during that time by an archeologist hired by KSNPC.
With the title of Registry Coordinator (Coordinator), this

archeologist worked closcly with the staff of KHC, Personnel
for the program included primarily the Coordinator and a
part-time secretary. The costs for developing and implement-
ing the Registry for the two years included $36,127 for
personnel and $7,378 for operations, prorated for the actual
time spent on activities. The average cost per year was
calculated at $21,753. This was less than Hoose’s (1984:5-6)
estimate of $35,000 per year for a full-time Coordinator once
program initiation had been completed.

After the first two years of operation and at the conclusion of
the grants, the Registry program was transferred to KHC and
became a permanent element of the archeological site
protection program. Administrative duties, secretarial
services, and the job of Coordinator are now conducted by
KHC personnel in addition to their other responsibilities. The
costs of the Registry have been absorbed by KHC into its
existing budget, and no new expenditures have been made.

Person-to-person contact and the development of a relation-
ship between the Coordinator and the landowner, based upon
mutual respect and trust, are major elements of the Registry
program. This personalized contact solidifies the landowner’s
commitment to protect the land. Careful planning and the
development of information that thoroughly documents the
site are also clements of the program. This ensures that only
the most significant and most worthy sites are considered,
thereby conferring a high degree of integrity on the program.

Objectives in registering archeological sites are the same as
those of the natural areas registry programs. These can be
summarized by paraphrasing the objectives outlined in the
TNC Midwest Regional Office Guidelines for Registry
Workers (The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office
1985:2).

* To provide landowners information that prevents the
unintentional or accidental destruction of archeological
sites, including educating landowners about the signifi-
cance of their sites and the lifeways of the people who
once lived there;

+ To understand landowners’ attitudes
properties and the sites found thereon;

toward their

* To instill landowners with a sense that their land is
special, and that they are special people for taking care of
these sites;

* To acknowledge that in many cases--when most of the
surrounding sites have been destroyed or degraded--their
sites remain only because they have taken deliberate
protective measures;

+ To instill landowners with a sense of responsibility, at
least for monitoring their sites; and

+ To establish a cordial, personal relationship between each
landowner and the Coordinator that will insure that
archeological sites are protected in private ownership.