A site is a site.  If it is 10 years old or 100 years old.  If it is a
small pile of trash on the side of the road in 1995 it is usually not
considered a site.  In 2095 if we find the same pile of trash it becomes
an indicator of cultural activity.  Where do we draw the line?  If we
only use the idea of N.R. eligibility we make archaeology and site files
nothing but an extension of CRM -- and they should be something more.
 
A while ago I did a 20+ mile survey, found one small aboriginal site and
a lot of small trash sites -- early to mid 20th century -- along field
edges.  I filled out site forms and they were given site numbers.  Kind
of dumb now but in 100 years , wow -- information of 150 year old
cultural patterns!  But, like everyone else I ignored those beer cans in
the ditch.
 
I think that these questions (site vs isolated artifact find vs non-site)
will never be answered to anyones satisfaction!
 
Karl Steinen