In this paper, I examine the difficulties the Austrian National Heritage Agency BDA has in comprehending the archaeological provisions of the Austrian Monuments Protection Law (DMSG). These reading comprehension problems are due to the fact that two of the most crucial terms in the law - the terms monument (Denkmal) and archaeological monument (Bodendenkmal) - each are used in two distinctively different meanings in the law. On the one hand, each of the terms can mean any object meeting certain, defined criteria under the law. One the other hand, each of the terms can mean specific objects meeting these criteria, which are also protected under the law. As a result, it becomes exceptionally difficult to distinguish when the legislator refers, in any of the provisions of the law, to an object that is merely called a 'monument' or 'archaeological monument', or to an object that is protected by the law as a 'scheduled (archaeological) monument'.