We have been having a rather odd discussion over on SUB-ARCH about the
Titanic. Several people over there are insisting that it is not an
archaeological site.
   When is a historical archaeological site too recent? (Yes, I know about
Bill Rathje's garbology studies, I have even participated, and it took my nose
a week to recover.) IMHO, both the Titanic and the recent Japanese sub that
has been found (the I-52) can be considered archaeological sites.
 
Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
[log in to unmask]  Owner: HISTARCH, SPANBORD, SUB-ARCH