I'm afraid I have to incline toward Adrian's statement about not all
     sites being equally important.  In fact, I ranted in Historical
     Archaeology a few years ago about how we have to be very careful about
     arguing significance, particularly with sites of the recent historic
     past, else we may be in danger of undermining support for spending tax
     dollars on cultural resource management.  As the late John Cotter once
     said to me, "Enough hot air can elevate any site to the level of
     significance," but that doesn't mean we should inflate the balloon.

     On the other hand, we must be equally careful not to be quickly
     dismissive of research areas outside our immediate areas of interest.
     I recall that while doing contract archaeology in Illinois the
     archaeologist with the Department of Transportation wanted to know if
     I would be interested in doing a particular project on a very late
     19th-century homestead.  When I didn't exactly jump at the
     opportunity, he allowed that they would simply write it off.  I said,
     "Wait a minute.  I'm not so interested in Cahokia Mounds, either, are
     you going to bulldoze that, too?"  My point, of course, was that the
     site in question might indeed produce useful data, and was probably
     worth testing, but I was not sure that I was the researcher best
     qualified to make that assessment.  By the same token, I haven't a
     clear idea what makes one industrial site better than an other to
     investigate, but by this time I should hope that someone does.

     [log in to unmask]