I think the sort of response Homer Thiel received from "unnamed" is
becoming more typical as federal and state agencies fight against the
ever-increasing amount of time and money archaeological and
historic resources are eating out of their every-decreasing budgets.
Which puts the onus on us to make very highly convincing cases for
"data recovery". The accepted game has become to write elaborate
"historic contexts" which underscore the significance of the
resource, and then to spring the trap by describing the resource as
an excellent way to illuminate the previously written historic
context. It really is a game. The "Hillary Syndrome" is real. Many of
us (myself included) feel that we could do a lot of interesting work
with nearly ANY reasonably well preserved site, but we must learn to
make the case very strongly, to decide which battles we're willing to
go to the line for, and, more frequently, to lose gracefully.
 
I do dislike the idea that archaeology is a way to "answer questions,"
and that we need to have those questions laid out ahead of time and to
select a specific site because it's the site that can answer those
qurestions. This leftover mind-set from the 1970s era of
"problem-oriented" archaeology could use some updating. If we knew
what we were going to find out by digging a site, there'd be little
reason to dig it! "Historic Contexts" can also make the case for the
unique, unknown history of a site, and for the importance of that site
to such intangibles as community pride, identity, solidarity, or
whatever.
 
And, Unnamed should rid him/herself of two other notions: that only
minorities are "undocumented," or that the principal purpose of
archaeology is to "document" undocumented history. Both notions are
highly mistaken.
 
As to Carl Barna's question about archaeologists fascination with
criterion D, that is not universal. I have often recommended
eligibility for a site based on C (and even, on occasion, A and B).
But we sometimes run into review archaeologists who attended some class
somewhere and were told that no standing structure can possibly be
eligible under D and no archaeological site can be eligible under
anything but D. Anyone with half a brain knows that's nonsense, but...
 
Bottom line, this is a game, and it's a tough game, and we need to
play it well and hard, or we're going to lose.
 
PS: That old gas works Mr. Thiel wants to dig is probably qualifiable
as a superfund site anyway. The 19th-c gas works site in Richmond,
which I surveyed, is chock full of hazmat!
 
Dan