This follows up on the discussion the other day.  I'f forwarding it on
     behalf a colleague who does not access the internet.  Any response
     will be forwarded to him.
 
     Thanks,
 
     Paul Antone
     Special Projects Officer
     Federal Archaeology Office
     National Historic Sites Directorate
     Parks Canada
     Department of Canadian Heritage
 
     ---------------------------
 
Auteur :  Pierre Nadon   ARCHAEOLOGY
Date :    95-08-11  09:43
Priorit  : Normale
pour : Paul Antone
Objet : Sites not worth excavating
 
     When this question was thrown around back in the seventies, ( earlier
     sites were  included ) the response was to better define the research
     objectives before excavating. Later, in terms of CRM, the problem grew
     since in many cases, sites were being threatened by land development.
     The question then becomes: how much consideration should a
     archaeological site get or bluntly put, how much $$$ should we put into
     it.
 
     There will never be an answer. I have excavated 19th century sites
     which have yielded unexpected artifacts, whereas  earlier sites have
     given redundant information. Also, archaeologists will always find a
     reason to weasel and excavate, though they do tend to be more wary as
     they get older!
 
     The best answer I can think of is protect whenever possible and the
     best protection is not to excavate. The ICOMOS 1990 International
     Charter for Archaeological Heritage Management reads in article 5 ".
     the gathering of information about the archaeological heritage should
     not destroy  any more archeological evidence that is necessary for the
     protectional or scientific objectives of the excavation". Should an
     excavation have to be carried out, it should be justified on the basis
     of new information that may be gathered and specialists should be
     consulted at the planning stage ( in the case of 19th century home
     sites, historical archaeologists having experience on that type of
     sites should be brought in and not the consultant who has presented the
     lowest bid.)