In a message dated 12/18/00 12:35:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<  also argued that rescue is a bit more random in its sampling
 proceedure than rescue (everybody wants to find a type-site and dig up nice
 palaces, etc.), but... not one of the more convincing arguments -
  >>

Back in the 1960s and 70s, salvage archaeology in the path of highways or
housing projects meant a meaningful sample and in some cases most of the
sites. However, today everyone wants to receive professional rates for their
services. This means that the recovered sample on a professional dig is
reduced to offset the costs. Also, the lack of conservation space to care for
salvaged artifacts has caused people to accept smaller samples as adequate
mitigation for site destruction. This is the sad state to which I referred.

Academic research on a site for pure research purposes could be stretched
over many years to allow for methodical excavation, reconsideration of the
results, change in strategies and thorough recovery. Salvage or "data
recovery mitigation" on the other hand, is like surgical strike force in
which they rush in and take out anywhere from 0.0025% to 5% and call it a
contribution to research (and then the site is bulldozed). Again, this seems
a sad state of affairs.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.