I am in support of Mark's comment.  We see far too many suggestions of
additional research, including mitigation efforts, simply because cool
stuff would be found or maybe the privy might have some intact bottles
in it.  A solid research design is important, and for most archeological
efforts (those tied to the 106 process), the research design is the
critical piece of the reason to excavate.  While Emily does not think
the listserv requires anyone to produce a comprehensive research design
(and she is correct), we still do.  Failing to prepare something that
does not justify the expenditure of public dollars is simply
irresponsible.
 
Stephen P. Austin (CESWF-EV-EC)
 
On Thursday, June 04, 1998 3:53 PM, Mark C. Branstner
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
| In a message dated 98-06-04 16:40:23 EDT, you write:
|
| << The last I was aware, this listserv, nor any other for that matter,
|  required a person to give a justification for their research question
|  to you or anyone else.  I'm sure that any researcher has already
asked
|  the questions you have asked and come up with a research plan but
|  stating the research plan in an email is not required nor wanted.  So
|  you want to play devil's advocate. OK.  Here's a question:  Why study
|  anything at all.  What do we hope to gain?  Why not let things just
go
|  on as they have been and never look at the cultures that came before
|  us?  After all, all that is behind us now.
|
|  emily
|   >>
|
| Granted, my response was a little flippant, but it was a serious
question that
| I believe touches on a whole range of theoretical and substantive
issues.  As
| noted in the first sentence, it was not an assault on the original
author,
| whom I consider a colleague.  Please reconsider my original posting.
|
| Mark