Mark and Histarchers,
 
Mark raises a good point, nothing should be undertaken 'just because.'
I have never contemplated this kind of thing before, but here are some
thoughts on what I would find interesting at an UGRR site-
 
What type of person/people were willing to make their homes part of the
ugrr?  What aspects of systems of class, gender, or ethnicity make one
person/family willing to put themselves at legal or personal risk by
participating in this activity by contrast with other families that
will/do not participate?  Is there a pattern or commonality among the
lifeways of the persons involved?  Perhaps there isn't.  Either way, it
would be interesting to look into.
 
Did ugrr "passengers" leave traces of their passing?  In a field so
enraptured with the material expressions of ethnicity and identity, this
presents a fascinating possible look at "African" and "African-American"
artifacts. If there are remains, why did people choose to take what they
did?
 
The most romantic and interesting aspects of some sites can be very
particularistic.  I have been intrigued by a noose-hung effigy or doll at
a southern California mine site and the graffitti in the attic of the
Spencer-Pierce-Little farm in Massachusetts.  How about Larry McKee's
fraternity pin from the excavations of slave quarters? Each of these
individual examples provide for illustrations of our reconstructions of
past lifeways.  They remind us that we will never know it all.  They
thrill people and keep archaeology enshrined as important to the many
publics of this country.  This, of course, keeps historic preservation
legislation and funding for archaeology in the law.
 
Some reasons to devote a major effort to the ugrr, just as I would the
immigrant trail...
 
Regards,
Tim