Bell, I have read through your link (thanx). If you read it in the right light, I believe you will see, as I'm saying, that the occurance of an item, object, site, etc... falling under these rules, is state land. And any use of the word "public land", is ........ by implication state public land (since this is a state document) .
I think where you are getting fouled up, is statements like this in there:
"Sites, objects, buildings, artifacts, implements, and locations of historical,
archeological, scientific, or educational interest, including those pertaining to prehistoric
and historical American Indians or aboriginal campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites,
their artifacts and implements of culture, as well as archeological sites of every character
that are located in, on, or under the surface of any land belonging to the State of Texas or
to any county, city, or political subdivision of the state are state archeological landmarks
and are eligible for designation. "
I'll look into that more. Seems to me that a site, or object, or whatever, has to be "deemed" archaeolgically signficant. Notice the key word "eligible", which indicates that an object or site wasn't "significant", UNTIL deemed so, through whatever process they have. Thus, not all the land, from border to border, is an archaeological site. Only sites designated so. But yes, I do see that they lump city and county, into the same class as state land, in this one paragraph. Interesting.
I think where you are getting fouled up, is statements like this in there:
"Sites, objects, buildings, artifacts, implements, and locations of historical,
archeological, scientific, or educational interest, including those pertaining to prehistoric
and historical American Indians or aboriginal campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites,
their artifacts and implements of culture, as well as archeological sites of every character
that are located in, on, or under the surface of any land belonging to the State of Texas or
to any county, city, or political subdivision of the state are state archeological landmarks
and are eligible for designation. "
I'll look into that more. Seems to me that a site, or object, or whatever, has to be "deemed" archaeolgically signficant. Notice the key word "eligible", which indicates that an object or site wasn't "significant", UNTIL deemed so, through whatever process they have. Thus, not all the land, from border to border, is an archaeological site. Only sites designated so. But yes, I do see that they lump city and county, into the same class as state land, in this one paragraph. Interesting.