In a message dated 98-02-23 10:48:49 EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< I was reading the interesting description of Sandy Island and have one
 question.  What is off-site archaeological mitigation, and, if it is what I
 think it is (buying one site so you can justify destroying another one), how
 can that be justified?  Aren't all archaeological sites unique?
 
                                                         Lucy Wayne >>
 
Well, from a certain point of view, of course all archaeological sites are
unique.  At a minimum, no two sites occupy the same space and everything is a
little bit differently arranged.  However, there can be tremendous redundancy
in data among sites which, for research purposes, make many virtually
identical.  That is what can lead to the possibility of doing off-site
mitigation.  There are those who disagree with this, but in many cases I
believe it to be far preferable to work on sites away from project areas in
that more important data can be retrieved.  Data may be available off site
that can shed much more light on a subject than the site which is in danger of
being destroyed.
 
Now, that said, there are inherent dangers in such work.  The most obvious of
these is that if one site can be treated this way, why not others which may be
unique, but which can be justified away because time is short and the
contractor needs to bulldoze that area for his project.  Politics can be very
influential in these situations.
 
Now, if there is no compromise on off-site mitigation, and one is forced to
mitigate effects to a site by digging only that site that is threatened, then
such problems do not usually come up, but then we may often be digging
redundant sites when the money could better be spent elsewhere.  That is the
dilemna, at least in this part of the world.
 
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants, L.L.C.
Ogden, Utah